Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Aircraft Carrier'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 29 results

  1. A_Horde_of_Sharks

    Oh no....

  2. I have played a couple of games to test the new commander skills and I noticed a big difference in my gameplay, the game has turned more "complex" for CVs, for example: Cruiser AA buff went from 10%+ to a maximum 65%+ (Adrenaline Rush), 55% more than before, playing as lower tier is a hell specially when ships are grouped They changed Concealment Expert skill to Stealthy that implies a penalty of 50% aircraft return time, the issue is your planes now will stay 50% more time under AA fire when them are gaining height till scape from AA to fly to your ship, that means you will lose all your returning planes before them reach your CV this nerf is that evident that devs added a secret penalty to Torpedo Armament Engineer undeclared in the skill info lol, you can prove it seeing the torp planes stats when you select that skill Torpedo Armament Engineer, Stealthy, Improved Engine Boost are direct nerfs They removed useful stuff like airplane additional speed from Adrenaline Rush and that -10% detection radius to your planes from Concealment Expert My Opinion: CV is the most hatred class because people do not lend themselves to understand it, people hate their nature role as DDs, cruiser and BBs have their own, but ignore the "reach" cvs really have in the gameplay, them are not really that overpower as they think, dealing Attacks take minimum a minute at least with the possibilty to miss and lose all your "bullets" giving a feeling of "running out of ammo" unless you were Kaga, you can only focus one target once People hate you if you play good or bad, if you did good, enemy team report you, if you don't, your team do, you can't literally or hardly have karma if you're main CV, your teammates blame to you for the entire team mistakes, they ask you do multiple task at same time, giving AA, spotting, dealing dmg, dening capture, giving vision as you were RTS while you're helping one flank, the other get mad, the dumbest players are who more complain to CVs the ones who don't dodge, fight alone away, bad positioning, etc Is not fair this class is getting nerfed constantly for those kind of players for no having common sense, a Yamato can oneshoot you 26km away if you give him broadside, you need to put attention to your map and around for comming threats like planes, "you can't complain you're a CV lmbo" ridiculing one of my big reasons why I play and like the game They don't only affect the gameplay of my favorite CV Shokaku, they did to an entire class, I hardly enjoyed those games (Sorry for my grammar errors)
  3. It was either sheer luck or applied skill that turned this game around. Playing a ranked match on Northern Waters in Silver League we make a comeback from being triple capped.
  4. Recuerdo haber visto un video respecto a los problemas actuales que hay con los porta aviones dentro del juego, sinceramente llega a ser un problema bastante gordo cuando el comandante del portaviones tiene habilidades muy buenas, en especial durante las clans wars y ranked. lo que se me ocurrió para unas nuevas medidas de combate contra porta aviones, donde algunos barcos dedicados a la defensa AA, un ejemplo de esto serian barcos como el Worcester, Minotaur, Colbert, Smolensk incluso algunos destructores que si bien la mayoría en tier 10 posen armamento de doble propósito, yo consideraría que no todos poseyeran estas capacidades nuevas que me mencionare debido a que esto podría volver inútil a un porta aviones contra destructores el cual suele ser una de sus funciones ayudar al equipo a deshacerse de los destructores enemigos. La idea es volver en barcos dedicados a la defensa AA una nueva opción de armamentos, el uso manual de la batería principal de doble propósito causando a la vez una mejora significativa en la precisión de las salvas, con una interfaz de disparo similar a como se usa la batería principal pero esta vez apuntando al cielo para derribar aviones con las salvas explosivas mas no una mejora en las monturas AA que no son de doble propósito, esto con la idea de que cruceros ligeros con armamento doble propósito y algunos destructores puedan tener mas protagonismo en batalla de clases y ranked donde esta permitido el uso de porta aviones, de esta manera el uso de estos barcos con este nuevo tipo de mecánica aria que el barco desvié su atención de quien esta atacando en superficie y ponga atención a los aviones, ya que también es sabido que es molesto la gran cantidad de spam que estos cruceros y destructores hacen y llegan a ser un dolor muy grande de cabeza cuando están bien cubierto, el rango máximo seria el mismo que pose el barco en alcance de defensa AA que todo barco pose adaptándose a su propio alcance de defensa AA, al igual que el armamento principal pose un sigma y una dispersión considero que estos parámetros también los posea la nueva mecánica propuesta, la cadencia de salvas explosivas en cruceros ligeros probablemente no deba ser igual a la cadencia normal del armamento contra superficie ya que los aviones no posen la misma vida que un barco (a acepción de los escuadrones del F.D Roosevelt), quizás manteniendo la cantidad de salvas explosivas AA de cada barco, esta mecánica ayudaría a los comandantes de estos barcos a brindar un mejor soporte a sus aliados ya que obviamente por la naturaleza de estos armamentos en el juego no son capaces de defenderse a uno mismo a corta distancia de los aviones lo cual daría un rol de soporte mejorado a cruceros ligeros de este tipo contra porta aviones y un rol AA a algunos destructores que deseen llevar esta función. otra opción a estas mecánicas seria que en vez de ser una característica especial de estos barcos sea en realidad una modificación de equipamiento del barco que solo puedan montar barcos con armamento de doble propósito, esto daría surgimientos a destructores o cruceros ligeros especiales para combatir porta aviones o decidir si se quiere continuar siendo un barco anti superficie puro dejando la Defensa AA automática que siempre hemos tenido, esta modificación de equipamiento tendría un nombre similar a "Radar anti aéreo mejorado, Especialista anti aéreo, Renovación del sistema AA" etc. Un nombre similar que la descripción diría "permite el uso manual de la batería de doble propósito en la defensa anti aérea" también nuevamente, teniendo en cuanta parámetros nuevos de sigma y dispersión especiales para esta mecánica para evitar que sea demasiado poderoso y vuelva prácticamente inútil a un porta aviones quizás que esta modificación elimine la capacidad de uso del consumible de defensa anti aérea para evitar que sea super poderosa la combinación manual y la mejora de la defensa AA, la modificación quizás podría traer un 25% oh un 40% en el daño de la salva explosiva ya que no posera el consumible defensa anti aérea ya que la modificación lo impediría. es verdad que los acorazados también posen armamento doble propósito pero los acorazados son mucho mucho mas comunes que los otros tipos de barco dentro del juego y considero que no seria bueno para el juego que estos barcos poseyeran estas capacidades debido a que en una partida en aleatoria llega a haber muchos acorazados en guerra de clanes suele ser 1 o 2. otra medida es que me gustaría que wargaming hiciera que los cazas de barcos y porta aviones derriben aviones durante todo el tiempo de actividad y no solo causar 20k de daño a escuadrones y luego retirarse porque esto es un problema grabe contra porta aviones que sus escuadrones tiene mucha vida como el F.D Roosevelt. Gracias por tomarse el tiempo de leer este post y de opinar sobre el tema si seria una buna o mala idea implementar una mecánica así o similar.
  5. Hello all, If WG wants to add a Tier 6 Premium Normal Aircraft Carrier for US Navy, USS Wasp would be a good idea. Ship Length - 225.9 meters ~ 226 meters Beam - 33.2 meters Draft - 6.1 meters Speed - 29.5 knots Cost - same as Ark Royal and Erich Loewenhardt (6,300 doubloons) Secondary Armament Eight 127mm guns Firing Range - 4.5km Rate of Fire - 13.33 shots/minute Reload Time - 4.5s HE shell - 127mm HE/HC Mk36 (Same as Ranger) Maximum HE shell Damage - 1,800 AA Defence 1 sixteen 28mm AA guns Average damage per second - between 24 - 34 Firing range - 3 - 4km AA Defence 2 twenty-four 12.7mm Browning Average damage per second - between 90 - 120 Firing Range - 1.2km Maneuverability Top Speed - 29.5 knots Turning radius... Rudder Shift time... Concealment Detectability by Sea Ranger - 14.22km Wasp - 14 - 15km Detectability by Air Ranger - 10.66km Wasp - 11 - 12km Aircraft Compliment Rocket Aircraft - F4U Corsair Rockets in payload - 8 Damage - 2,000 Fire chance - 7% Cruise speed - 130 - 150 Hit Point - 1460 Squadron size - 6, 3 per attack run/ 2 per attack run (Tell me what you rather) Number of Aircraft on deck - 9 Aircraft restoration time - 45 - 60 seconds Torpedo Bombers - TBF Avenger Torpedos in payload - 1 Range - 2.5km Damage - 6,467 Flooding chance - 52% Cruising speed - 110 - 130 Hit points - 1,800 Squadron size - 8, 2 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 12 Aircraft restoration time - 50 - 65 seconds Dive Bombers - SBD Dauntless Bombs in payload - 1 Bomb type - AP(according to Enterprise, If a light cv is added, bomb type would be HE) Maximum damage - 8,000 - 10,000 Cruising speed - 90 - 110 Hit points - 1,890 Squadron Size - 6, 3 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 9 Restoration time - 40 - 55 seconds
  6. Heya, it's ReimuBakarei. You guys might've heard of me from watching a video or two of mine. I am the CV player for the clan -KIA- and I have been playing carriers since pre-rework. Our clan has repeatedly reached Hurricane pretty much every season and CVs being added to clan battles lately has allowed me to participate and teach my clanmates how to play around carriers as well as fight them. I just started a new series that I plan to continue on throughout the future called CV Academy and my goal from this is to help you guys who have any questions or struggles with your CV games. I have been making videos for a while and only started using voice commentary recently so still getting used to that. If you guys are interested, please feel free to check out my content and I hope they are helpful to you guys! Link to the first video of the series and my YouTube channel
  7. CaptainZade_NA

    US CVs

    Hey I'm back again, grinding up the French cruiser line but I've also decided to try and grind the US CV lines as well, well I don't really have them quite yet but what should I expect from the US CVs? Do they differ from other CVs and do they have different playstyles or something? And also what commander skills would do me well for the whole grind?
  8. So I know that people are going to get angry at me and tell me CV's should be garbadge and be removed, but I'm going to say this anyway Tier 8 carriers, when uptiered to tier 10, are woefully underpowered. There. I said it. Let the angry comments and negativity flow! All kidding aside, I feel that tier 8 carriers are in a good spot at their tier. At tier 8, I feel that most carriers are in a pretty good spot with some even being borderline overpowered. Sure you can have a CV focus you down if you're alone, but usually you won't do a huge amount of damage or get an absurd number of kills (in my experience). There can be exceptions, *cough American CVs cough*, but for the most part, carriers are not as rewarding as surface ships are. However, notice that I said they were fine at tier 8. When these ships are uptiered, it's a nightmare! Now I am not saying that tier 10 ships shredding planes is a bad thing, I've gone full AA builds on my Des memes myself, but it would be fine if there was about 3 or 4 tier 10 ships as you can try and avoid them and wait for ships to isolate themselves from the rest of the pack. But the constant matchmaking I often have is that the entire enemy team is filled to the brim with tier 10. In that situation, the best you can hope for is to maybe get some chip damage on enemies while having all of your aircraft lost at the first half of the battle. In something like the saipan, where your aircraft replenish slowly, you have to rely on getting your armament on target while being sure you will be completely deplaned. That's why I consider it the weakest aircraft carrier in the entire game as of now. In short, I feel that tier 8 carriers are so underpowered for the constant tier 10 matchmaking they are faced with. But I want to keep this positive so I wanted to give a few suggestions to any of the dev's who might be listening. After all, we should try and give feedback to help make things better. My first idea is the most straightforward. Make it harder for the matchmaker to uptier carriers. Heck, maybe make it harder for some other ships to be uptiered like cossack and z-39. Other ships which have heavy problems with being bottom tier. Maybe after a certain time, the matchmaker allows these ships to go into tier 10 battles just like tier 10 double cv games were solved. My second idea was a little bit more risky. Nerfing the AA of tier 10 ships to tier 8 aircraft. Not tier 10 aircraft, tier 8, ok? Good. As I said this is a bit more risky since this could be exploited by unicums and statpadders alike so I am not sure about this option. Finally, my last idea was to give tier 8 carriers planes a little more health. This isn't the best idea either and is pretty much here just for the rule of threes. This could be easily exploited by sealclubbers who could slaughter enemies without fear of taking heavy damage. Anyways, these are my thoughts on this. I may be wrong about some things so I would love feedback from others. I don't want carrier's to be broken or horribly unfun to play as or against. I do want to see this rework succeed. I hope this layed out my, and other's, issues to those who were willing to read this gigantic vomit of text. Have a great day out there wherever you are! (And please don't get me started on AP bombs vs HE bombs. That's a topic for another day)
  9. As the first Tier 10 Premium CV. With a few buffs, this ship would be competitive at Tier 10, offer a different playstyle from Midway (AP bombs!) and again be widely available for players to enjoy.
  10. dEsTurbed1

    Why I hate Carriers

    So why would I hate Carriers after living through RTS and double carriers in the beginning? Within 1 minute my destroyer can loose over half it's health. All AA under tier 8 is useless and puts your ship at the mercy of enemy carriers skill. Being able to take a Des Moines and stop a push while hugging an island, to suddenly loosing 20l health to a midway bomb attack with def AA on.... ... It is real simple, skill gap still exists, but now it's fun for noobs to fly planes. A good CV player dictates a match, a bad one is worse than an afk dd.... .... Dealing with, dodging and being focused is still no fun, but now it takes less skill to do it. Now that we have AP rockets, I'm going to learn to love my carriers again.
  11. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review: Kaga

    The following is a review of Kaga, a ship kindly provided to me by Wargaming. This is the release version of the vessel and these stats are current as of June 1st, 2017.The awkward teenager. Quick Summary: An enormous carrier with specialized dive bomber and torpedo bomber squadron attack modes. Her fighters are not up to snuff.Cost: $43.99 USD including a port slot.Patch and Date Written: May 17th to May 30th, 2017. Patch 0.6.5 to 0.6.5.1. Closest in-Game Contemporary Hiryu, Tier VII Japanese Aircraft CarrierDegree of Similarity:Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique Kaga is only superficially similar to a stock Hiryu. At least then Kaga shares Hiryu's fighters, torpedo planes and dive bombers. However, all of Kaga's strike aircraft have unique ordnance, strike patterns and squadron sizes. The physical ship itself shares very little with the other carriers, with her hull based on that of a battleship. PROs Large hit point pool. Well protected citadel, including anti-torpedo bulges. Specialized large dive bomber squadrons with super-accurate drops. Specialized, large torpedo plane squadrons with a special drop pattern. Enormous carrier capacity of 85 planes. Excellent (and optimized) Flight Control Group of 2-2-1, allowing her to use and abuse two torpedo squadrons at the same time. CONs Huge target with large, soft areas that are easy for any HE shell to penetrate. Her impressive looking secondary compliment is more for show. Fighter groups are only tier VI, making them the underdog in almost any match-up. Poor damage potential from her aerial bombs. Her larger flight groups lead to longer reload times for her strike aircraft. Only modest AA power. She turns as like a one legged cow. She's about as fast too. Very easy to spot. Enormous aerial detection range and a large surface detection range too. Kaga is a beast and she looks the part. This carrier is absolutely enormous and she looks armed to the teeth with huge aircraft squadrons cluttering her decks and massive, heavy-cruiser sized defensive batteries. Tack on all of the history behind the vessel and what's not to love? In World of Warships, she's a very interesting aircraft carrier and worth taking a closer look, even if you're not a fan of the ship type. OptionsKaga has the option of using two different Flight Control groups, divided between 1-1-3 squadrons and 2-2-1 squadrons between fighters, torpedo planes and dive bombers respectively. For the first Flight Control group, the hangar capacity is divided between 11 fighters, 21 torpedo planes and 53 dive bombers. The second splits the hangar capacity with 28 fighters, 43 torpedo planes and 14 dive bombers. Consumables:Damage Control Party Module Upgrades: Four slots, standard aircraft carrier upgrades. Premium Camouflage: Tier VI+ Standard. This provides 50% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. For upgrades, I would select the following: In your first slot, take Air Groups Modification 1. Your secondaries and AA guns aren't good enough to be worth hurting your fighters any further. In your second slot, you have a choice. Flight Control Modification 1 is probably considered optimal. Kaga's larger strike air groups have almost a 30s reload time between waves and this will reduce them down by about four seconds. Alternatively, you can try and make your fighters a credible threat by using Air Groups Modiifcation 2. Understand that if you go this route, it's an uphill battle. Your fighters alone aren't likely to win you air supremacy that wasn't already gift wrapped for you by your opponent selecting a Strike-Ranger. In your third slot, take Damage Control System Modification 1. This will get your anti-torpedo protection up to 24% which is quite nice for a carrier. And in your final slot, take Damage Control System Modification 2. You will come under attack and you will suffer fires and floods. It's possible this last module will be the difference between surviving or not. Besides, nothing can really help Kaga pretend to be nimble, so don't kid yourself that the other mods will do you any service. Air Groups Aircraft Types: Mitsubishi A6M2 fighter, Nakajima B5N2 torpedo plane, Aichi D3A1 dive bomber Flight Control Groups: One fighter, one torpedo plane and three dive bombers (1-1-3) or two fighter, two torpedo plane, one dive bomber (2-2-1) Base Squadron Sizes: Four fighters, Six Torpedo Planes, Six Dive Bombers Hangar Capacity: 85 Like Saipan before her, Kaga has some unique features where her air groups are concerned. Fighters Kaga uses tier VI A6M2 "Zero" fighters. These are the exact same fighters you first unlock on the tier VI Ryujo and use again with the stock tier VII Hiryu. They even come in the same squadron size of four fighters which can be upgraded to five if you take the Air Supremacy skill. With mirrored matchmaking between carriers, these fighters have an immediate disadvantage over most other fighters you will encounter. Proper use of the strafe mechanics is key to doing the most damage possible. This will buy your strike aircraft time to do their job. You'll hemorrhage fighters quickly in most cases and eat through even Kaga's substantial reserves. So long as this is used to make strikes to the betterment of your team, the losses are acceptable. It can be worthwhile to freely offer up your fighters to lock down those of your enemy to give your bombers a clear attack run -- with Kaga, this is often all that's needed. More than any other carrier, Kaga benefits from the skill, Dogfighting Expert. It's rare that she will ever face same-tier fighter squadrons, and this provides a ready boost to their (in)efficiency. While this won't give her close to parity in performance with A6M5s or Hellcats (never mind Corsairs), it will give them a bit more attack power to help draw out fights. A6M2 Zeroes hound a Ranger's TBF Avengers. Dive Bombers There are several odd points about Kaga's dive bombers. Superficially, they share the same baseline stats as Ryujo's tier VI D3A1s. This includes hit point total and speed, but the similarities end there. Kaga organizes her dive bombers in squadrons of six planes instead of the usual four found on standard IJN Carriers. Their turn around time in the hangar is 31 seconds up from 19 seconds for Hiryu's dive bombers. In addition, they use a different armament. Kaga's D3A1s are armed with the Type 99 N6 Mod 1 bomb. Compared to those found on Hiryu, they have less armour penetration, a smaller blast-size, reduced fire chance and, most crucial of all, they do less damage. All of these drawbacks are compensated by having an dispersion radius nearly half that of normal IJN dive bomber squadrons and could be closely compared to that from Saipan's. Unlike the American premium, Kaga can tighten this further with a manual drop, landing nearly all of her bombs with pin point accuracy. Properly aimed, you can guarantee all of her bombs will strike a target. This is very necessary as her bombs only do 858 damage per hit (or less on saturated targets). An upgraded squadron with seven planes is only going to put out a maximum of 6006 damage with their strikes which is a far cry from the destroyer-busting salvos from Saipan. With a manual drop, it's unlikely that more than a single fire will be lit as they will all cluster on a single section and most ships will laugh off this kind of damage. It's only through the use of multiple dive bomber squadrons that Kaga can stack any substantial amount of damage and it's not easy going. Moreover, it's often not worth the effort of trying to land these pinpoint strikes and this, in turn, diminishes the value of the 1-1-3 control group. I've found that it's not really necessary to manually drop Kaga's dive bombers. I will spend little more time with them than to align their approach vector along the long-axis of the ship and let them auto drop. This will not result in as many hits overall, but it is more likely to spread fires across multiple sections of the ship. This in turn taxes the Damage Control Party of my target and sets up follow up attacks with torpedo planes quite nicely Overall, Kaga's dive bombers are interesting but they're not the weapon of choice for maximizing damage with this vessel and they largely play a secondary or follow up role. Blast radius of the dive-bombers from tier VII carriers with a reference-Mahan for scale. Kaga is the least likely to detonate targets she strikes with bombs as hits must be grouped quite precisely over top of the magazines to set them off. Other carriers need only land them within the same postal code to have a chance at damaging a whole number of modules. Torpedo Planes Once more, Kaga borrows from Ryujo with the B5N2 torpedo plane. In this case this isn't acting at a disadvantage to Hiryu as both carriers use this aircraft. Immediately players will notice that Kaga's squadron size for her torpedo planes is enormous, comparable to the six-plane squadrons of USN carriers. Their reload time is 29 seconds compared to 21 seconds for Hiryu's squadron of four, but is far in advance of Ranger's 41 seconds. This even compares well to Saipan's 22 second rearmament with her Skyraiders. Taken in isolation, Kaga can turn around more torpedo bombers faster than any of the other tier VII carriers. The large squadron size also comes with the option with the 2-2-1 load-out to operate two squadrons simultaneously (with 31 reserve bombers!), opening up all sorts of brutal meta play. Kaga's torpedoes travel at 48 knots compared to the 35 knots of Hiryu's torpedoes with only a minor sacrifice of 400m worth of range, bringing their reach down to a 3km. This all comes without sacrificing damage which is obscene. Kaga's torpedo drop takes a unique pattern. Rather than dropping line abreast, the formation of six planes drops in two lines, one in front of the other. Each line has three fish. The torpedoes released closest to the target are spread further apart. The second line is more tightly packed -- akin to the initial spacing of USN aerial dropped torpedoes. Casualties taken from Kaga's torpedo planes removes aircraft from this second line first, diminishing the tighter cluster. Like all IJN torpedo aircraft, their torpedoes take a convergent path on a manual drop. The net of this drop is quite different from the usual pattern players are used to evading. By playing with the range of the attack and overlapping salvos, different combinations can be used depending on the target. The wide spread of advanced torpedoes can be ignored in favour of focusing on emphasizing the narrow spread that drops behind. These drops at near point blank range can see players panic to avoid the wide-spread fish only to expose themselves to the cluster coming in behind. The variations are many, especially when doubled up with a second squadron for a cross drop, bullet-hell nightmare that will make for some great YouTube montages. Kaga's torpedo planes allow her to assassinate most surface vessels outright through either a combination of overwhelming damage or a mix of direct assault and damage over time effects. She can afford to attack targets that other carriers might not brave grace of her deep plane reserves. Approximate size of manual torpedo drop spreads at minimum arming range for Ranger (left) and Kaga (right). Both carriers have comparable widths at this range, but Kaga's will converge the further her torpedoes run while Ranger's will diverge over distance. Reference-Mahan used for scale. Load Outs Given the ridiculous strengths of Kaga's torpedo bombers, her 2-2-1 build is optimal. A single torpedo hit against most targets will do more damage than an entire squadron of dive bombers. This build also gives her more fighters to work with to help unstick her attack planes from enemy bandits. The carrier-snipe potential from this build is very real and anyone facing a Kaga should be wary of misplacing Kaga's torpedo plane squadrons lest they find themselves ambushed. So while air superiority is difficult for this carrier to achieve, she can wrest it away by going for the source of enemy aircraft with alarming ease. Firepower Secondary Battery: Ten 200mm guns in single casemate mounts, sixteen 127mm 8x2 turrets. On paper, Kaga appears to carry more firepower than the mid tier IJN Heavy Cruisers. It would be a mistake to expect too much out of these weapons. First of all, they are divided into port and port and starboard batteries, giving her a maximum broadside of five 200mm guns and eight 127mm guns. Second, their fire angles preclude all of the guns from engaging a target in her forward aspect until they're 45º off her bow (or 30º off her stern). Third, their range is limited to 4.5km. And finally, Kaga is an aircraft carrier. She's not built to trade fire with surface ships. While it may be tempting to toss a secondary-specialized Captain in her, it's your funeral. Short of a low health, Soviet destroyer being stupid enough to stray into gun range, your secondaries aren't going to get a whole lot of exercise. Attempts to do so often end hilariously and with a sad trombone sound effect. Manoeuvrability Top Speed: 28.0 knotsTurning Radius: 1080mRudder Shift: 14.4s Maximum Turn Rate: 2.69º per second. Kaga doesn't do anything particularly fast. Her top speed isn't impressive and this leaves her dangerously vulnerable if one flank collapses. When it comes to agility, whole generations live and die before she can manage to turn herself 90º, never mind coming full about. DurabilityHit Points: 51,000Maximum Protection: 19mm + 76mm + 152mm Min Bow & Deck Armour: 19mm extremities, 21mm flight deckTorpedo Damage Reduction: 22% Kaga has an enormous hit point pool for a tier VII carrier, which she deserves given the size of her. Being built on a battleship hull, her layers of protection around her citadel are quite formidable. Her citadel itself has 76mm of protection and is almost entirely submerged. At medium to close ranges, one must also punch through 152mm armoured belt and 19mm anti-torpedo bulges. While this won't turn away battleship shells, it does provide a reasonable obstacle for cruisers and destroyers, giving Kaga some survivability in such encounters, so long as they're kept brief. The downside is that all of this armour around her citadel is made largely irrelevant when it comes to high explosive attacks. Kaga is enormous and most of that upper structure right to her deck is easily penetrated by any high explosive shells she's likely to face. It's almost impossible to miss her once you start shooting and her tall silhouette makes a tempting target. Her torpedo damage reduction isn't great, but at least she has some. Not every carrier can boast that. This can save her from flooding damage and frustrate would-be carrier snipers. Secondary batteries exchange between Kaga and Dunkerque. Don't try this at home. Concealment & Camouflage Base Surface Detection Range: 12.6km Air Detection Range: 13.6 km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 10.3km Minimum Aerial Detection Range: 11.4km Kaga makes Großer Kurfurst look like a modest design. This ship be huge. Specifically, Kaga is very tall. Her flight deck is almost at the same height as the top of Yamato's rangefinders. Yeah. She's that big. This comes with some understandable complications. Aside from just being easier to hit, she's also very easy to spot. Kaga has a larger aerial detection range than she does a surface detection range. Stray float planes and wandering enemy fighters are likely to uncover her at inopportune times. This makes taking an aggressive position filled with more risk than it might in a Hiryu or Saipan, for example, especially given her less than exemplary speed and agility. Once Kaga is detected by surface vessels, disengaging is all but impossible. She doesn't have the speed or stealth to open up the distance and, short of sinking her pursuers, she can only hope to make use of island cover to make her escape. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 127mm / 25mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 5.0km / 3.1kmAA DPS per Aura: 81 / 70 Kaga's anti-aircraft armament isn't up to the task of keeping her safe. To be fair, it's only slightly behind that of Hiryu, but even being up to par with that CV wouldn't be anything worth bragging about. Kaga's fighter cover is really necessary to keep her safe from enemy attack, taxing her already over burdened (and up tiered) fighters even more. This makes Air Groups Modification 2 look even more appealing to provide her fighters with improved endurance to continue to harass and shoot down approaching attack planes. Given her large aerial detection range, you can expect to be sniffed out early and for many opponents to try their luck at taking you out with a snipe. Worse, her large aerial detection range far exceeds even the maximum upgraded range of her AA batteries, necessitating the use of fighters to search for and clear out spotters to keep enemy surface ships from trying their luck with a long ranged pot shot or two. How to Increase your Joy The commander skills needed to optimize Kaga aren't anything special. Her AA power and secondaries aren't really worth spending skill points into to try and emphasize. This leaves us with a focus of skills to improve her aircraft performance and rearmament times -- skills that mesh well with most of the other IJN carriers, making Kaga a decent training ship once the minimums have been selected. As usual, we'll be racing to select a top tier skill first before doubling back. To this end, we'll be selecting one skill from each tier for our first 10pts spent. Start with Aircraft Servicing Expert -- Kaga's reload timer with her strike aircraft is quite long compared to other IJN Carriers. Follow this up with Torpedo Acceleration at the next tier. This will drop your effective range of your torpedo planes to 2.4km but it will increase the speed of your torpedoes to 53 knots which is hilarious. Next, take Torpedo Armaments Expertise. Finally, take Air Supremacy. Now we can double back through the lines. For your 11th point, take Dogfighting Expert. Few carriers benefit from this skill as enormously as Kaga does with her tier VI fighters. With that, your fighter squadrons are now a credible threat to a stock Hiryu and a mismanaged Saipan. From this point, you can take skills to taste. I would strongly recommend taking Concealment Expert with your next 4 skill points -- Kaga gets spotted often and this can really help mitigate that. If you choose to live dangerously (or decide that being spotted is a forgone conclusion), you can elect to take Basic and Advanced Fire Training to prop up her modest levels of flak and pretend that her secondaries are a serious threat -- which they aren't. Skills like Expert Rear Gunner and High Alert are great follow up choices for the more serious minded. She's hyooj. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme Carrier game play is largely unforgiving as a rule. That said, Kaga is about as suitable for a new player as any aircraft carrier is likely to be outside of tier IV. She's very auto-drop friendly and she can land a large number of bomb and torpedo hits, even if you don't know how to manually aim. In the hands of an expert, Kaga is easy-mode on a whole new level. I dread seeing the damage totals this thing will spit out when the veterans get a hold of her. She offers so much control of damage-over-time effects and high alpha strikes. The biggest hurdle will be proper management of her under-performing fighters while ensuring that her own strike craft deliver their payloads quickly and efficiently. Mouse's Summary: How did this get past testing in this form? The 2-2-1 load out is disgusting. The only real challenge with her is managing her under-strength fighter squadrons. The rest is easy mode. I'm sorry, Ranger. I am so sorry. Kaga is very powerful. Maybe too powerful. I get how Wargaming might considered her balanced. Her fighters, even when fully specialized, will never be match for her contemporaries. Kaga's strike squadrons take a long time to reload. Her dive bombers don't hit especially hard and, when manual dropped, aren't likely to set more than a single fire. She is awkward and she is slow to respond. She is clumsy. She's easily spotted even when she thinks she's being subtle and sneaky. And, of course, Kaga has really big guns that will only get her into trouble if she tries to flaunt them. I am getting high school flashbacks. This all goes towards making her 2-2-1 build acceptable at a cursory glance, which it really shouldn't be. I am not expecting the population at large to dominate with Kaga. Her performance is locked behind a skill wall. However, I do think attention needs to be justly placed on her potential. Facing off against a competently captained Kaga will be a nightmare. I had some serious open-Beta Midway flashbacks during my play-test sessions. It felt cruel how easy it was to stack floods, set up cross drops and largely abuse surface ships. I cringe to think why Wargaming decided this game play was unacceptable for Midway, yet perfectly cromulent for Kaga, especially when under performing ships like Ranger go without. Yet, Kaga won't paint any potatoes purple. She doesn't come with training wheels. Waste time setting up attacks and your team will melt around you. Botch a carrier snipe and you'll pay for it. Choose the wrong target and your planes will evaporate before placing their drop. Mishandle your fighters against a Saipan or HIryu and you'll be on your back foot from the word go. Kaga is easily a contender for the best carrier at her tier. She's hands down better than Ranger. On the attack, she's better than Saipan or Hiryu, but she's weaker than both defensively in terms of her fighters and also the vulnerability of the carrier herself. Is she overpowered? She definitely has facets -- or rather, one facet, that smacks of such. Would I Recommend? I should preface this with the following: Kaga isn't likely to convert any new carrier players to the fold. If you haven't enjoyed playing carriers before, I don't think she'll win you over. While the attack patterns of her dive bombers and torpedo planes are interesting, they are not some miracle fix to the disparate game play between carriers and surface vessels. For PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? Very yes. Kaga can carry a PVE-match. Her damage output with the proper build is ridiculous. Snipe the enemy Kaga then farm damage at will. Her repair costs are just shy of a 34,000 credits while she'll gross between 75,000 to 100,000 easily on a decent match. For Random Battle Grinding This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. I could easily recommend Kaga to grind up through Random Battles, with the one provision that she only makes a suitable trainer for commanders with at least 10pts invested in aircraft carrier skills. Without these, she really struggles against anything short of a Strike Ranger. For Competitive Gaming:Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. In competitive environments, a well commanded Kaga is a potential nightmare for the enemy team and a strong contender for one of the best carriers at her tier. In the hands of an expert, she can delete enemy ships at will. For Collectors:If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. Kaga has an extensive history, including her famous end at the Battle of Midway. For World of Warships players, she also represents the first IJN carrier premium, which is something in of itself. She's also the second carrier premium ever. For Fun Factor:Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? I generally dislike carrier game play so it was hard for me to enjoy my time with Kaga. Take that with the necessary pinch of salt. I didn't find anything particularly compelling about playing her. What's the Final Verdict?How would the ship rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE- Grossly uncompetitive and badly in need of buffs.Mehbote - Average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable, but certainly not advantageous.Gudbote - A strong ship that has obvious competitive strengths and unique features that make it very appealing.OVERPOWERED - A ship with very clear advantages over all of its competitors and unbalancing the game with its inclusion.
  12. HMS_FlyingConqueror

    Idea for CV balance change

    So here's an Idea I've been mulling about in my head for a while, that could (hopefully?) solve some issues people have when it comes to carriers. Do take what I say with a grain of salt and I'd love to see some, respectful, insight into this idea. Damage Lean heavier into the DOT damage model, increase fire/flood chance, but lower damage. This one change could take the pressure off some other classes. Speed and detection. so, as a CV, it can be difficult trying to support your team, especially if they split into two flanking columns on opposite sides of the map, an increase in squadron speed would allow the carrier to arrive on the scene faster to assist should the enemy carrier be present. Additionally, and this is the most radical part of the idea, change the spotting mechanics. What I mean by this, is: Reduce surface detection range for all ship classes to above current air spotting, but below current surface spotting, preferably somewhere in the middle. Increase air spotting range to current surface spotting range, with the caveat of being unable to spot a ship outside its normal detection range when firing (so no spotting from an enemy firing, just visual of the shells) and limited plane travel height, (so no climbing mountains, I'd imagine this would function like the barriers of the map, automatically turning the squadron around if it scales a taller mountain) When spotting, have a delay to the reveal of the target, similar to radar, but perhaps a longer duration, ~10-15 seconds maybe. This may not be perfect per se, however the idea is to incentivize CVs to play a far more supportive role, spotting for the team and guarding against enemy carrier spotting/attacks, which ties into the third point; Gameplay Currently Carrier stands as the hardest class to master as well as the most expensive class to play, I'd like to propose one last set of changes. Remove fighters as a consumable, and give the player an option when selecting "Attack Aircraft" , when selecting squadron 1, press either T or Y to select between rocket aircraft, for an anti-ship role, or fighter aircraft, for an anti-air role. Incentivize support play by rewarding EXP and credits for both spotting damage and aircraft damage, maybe not as much as kills, objectives, or raw damage, but enough to make people want to play to and with their team. Conclusion I know I don't have thousands of battles like many others, so my opinion may not be worth much, but I have played the game since beta, and think it would only further help the health of the game to bring in changes such as these, feel free to let me know what you think or maybe provide criticism about something I didn't take into account. See you on the water, fellow commanders.
  13. Felipe_1982

    FDR embargo has fallen?

    Hello, FDR has her embargo fall? Richtofen too? I know Richtofen will hit our shores on 08/05/2020... But already? I see ST doing matchs today...
  14. Back when the carrier rework happened, Wargaming stated that the odd carriers would be taken out of the tech trees, but could return. The motivation behind this post is to start a conversation about what ways we could add these carriers back in a supporting role. Warning: This is a hybrid request/conversation/rant/essay by me about bringing carriers Back and improved that not everybody will hate on but still being somewhat powerful. So my idea would be bringing back the odd carriers and arming them with support aircraft and support consumables. Basically instead of Attack, Torpedo, and bomber aircraft, we get Smoke “bomber”, Depth charge bombers, and consumable dropping “bombers”. Now smoke bomber aircraft are self explanatory, but they drop smoke canisters that act like destroyer smokes, and smoke a area for a period of time. Depth charge Bombers would drop depth charges to help destroy submarines, like destroyers and light cruisers can do in the submarine test servers. Now what do consumable bombers do ? You might ask. They drop consumable parcels instead of bombs. This is probably the main aircraft of these Support carriers. The consumable has to be dropped on a allied ship, like a bomb or rocket, and give that ally a randomly selected consumable their ship has equipped. The reason this is powerful and can turn the tide of a battle is it can sustain a battleship or heavy cruiser with repair party consumables to the point of allowing a small task force with a support carrier to win a game against a 4 man squad of Mushashis if they work together well enough. Now what about patrol fighters ? Well we give these support carriers a buffed fighter consumable that escorts an allied ship that it is dropped on, similarly to the ship borne fighter consumable. Now what about national differences ? Well we tackle this like fleet carriers. American aircraft are just versatile, Japanese support aircraft carriers drop recon aircraft instead of patrol fighters for their consumable. And Britain, if they ever would get this, would get their merchant aircraft carriers, in the form of consumable bombers that drop 1 of each type of consumable equipped on an allied ship. Germany doesn't get anything until they get a proper fleet carrier tree. And balance between teams? I propose support carriers be added as separate from fleet carriers as their own class. They are considered less powerful than a fleet carrier and are matched with a fleet carrier on their own team so there is a 1:1 ratio of carrier borne power on the teams. So either green team gets 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier vs 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier or 2 support carriers vs 2 support carriers. Research: I propose that these aircraft carriers are placed horizontally next to the fleet carriers at rank 6/VI and so they are behind a basic Carrier skill wall to prevent widespread groups of noobs dropping smoke on their allies at spawn. Reason for these to exist ?: I believe these carriers could not only give meaning to the odd carriers that were dropped but these support carriers could also help the lives of other ship classes, destroyers could actually get damage instead of having to drop smoke for allies or deal with the soon to drop submarines, designated team players like me (I like being useful by defending battleships from carriers with my Dallas) could get a new and gimmicky class of support ship, carrier players that don’t want to be hated for playing a cool class could get a new and less hated version of it, and players who want to help turn the tide of a battle without direct combat could finally support their allies. For those who think “WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE BALANCE” I say, you still depend on your allies to win, and you don’t have direct power over the battle, but if your team communicates you could have a sweeping amount of influence over the game. Premiums: (Yes, I had to add this to it to make it remotely possible) Shinano, the Yamato hull aircraft carrier. The proposition that has repeatedly been put up in suggestions as a T10 Premium but fails because of the fact it was a transport carrier instead of a fleet carrier. We could solve this by having her as a specialty support carrier that has the depth charge bombers and smoke bombers, but instead of consumable bombers, she can land a squadron of her planes on other allied carriers to refill their hanger of combat aircraft. (The aircraft would be split between the respective aircraft carrier’s aircraft classes.) The reason for this is because she carried aircraft in a transport hanger, not a combat hanger. This could be good reason for shinano being able to land her aircraft on other carriers. Or she could have the normal IJN carrier aircraft and have support capabilities to make her more versatile I end my essay here, please talk out this idea in the (comments? I think) and keep it civilized. And if anyone would kindly do some more research on the real world classes of support carriers and suggest them please do, but please credit me for the basic format/system I have put forward and the national specialties. (The actual idea of an alternate line was stated when they removed the odd tiers, and they mentioned firefighting and smoke planes.)(I spent 3 Hours working on this.) If you would like to learn about where I got the idea, Wikipedia merchant aircraft carriers (where I got the idea for the consumable aircraft and British specialty), the PB4Y/ B24 ( American long range bomber and maritime patrol aircraft, the PB4Y actually used depth charges and gave me the idea for the depth charge bombers.) and google the M-10 Smoke tank (a smoke tank used by the USAAF to drop a smokescreen in combat.) Just a excerpt from wikipedia on MAC's or merchant aircraft carriers. A merchant aircraft carrier (also known as a MAC) was a limited-purpose aircraft carrier operated under British and Dutch civilian registry during World War II. MACs were adapted by adding a flight deck to a bulk grain ship or oil tanker enabling it to operate anti-submarine aircraft in support of Allied convoys during the Battle of the Atlantic. Despite their quasi-military function, MACs retained their mercantile status, continued to carry cargo and operated under civilian command. MACs began entering service in May 1943 and although originally intended as an interim measure pending the introduction of escort carriers, they remained operational until the end of the war in Europe.
  15. metalhualer5165

    German carriers will they be added

    Wargaming are you planning on adding German carriers to WoWs in a line or a premium ship. If anyone else thinks that German carriers may be a good idea to add this ship class to the German tech tree in a premium or a line let's talk about it. I think that adding German CVs will add more diversity to WoWs in gameplay and choices of every player in the game.
  16. I wanted to share this.....hanging around business :v and here’s my more successful landing I’m hoping to make a server so that I can play with others who happens to play this amazing game.... I am using mods on this game and will provide a link to it hopefully soon
  17. This will be a short-ish post, but I’ve really thought about it for quite a while. Surface ships have HE/AP differences in damage, controllable by captains. Subs will be having their torps do different damage based on if they’re homing vs dumbfire, as of current time of posting of course, and again controllable by captains. Aircraft carriers have nothing. So to the devs, and my fellow captains, I offer this idea: implementation of random wind. In World War II, it’s common knowledge that to properly and most efficiently launch your aircraft, you had to be steaming into the wind. So my idea would be to make it so the game assigns a random wind direction, then checks the heading and power setting in comparison to said relative wind, and if it’s say 10-15+\- the proper heading, and a higher power setting (3/4 to full) a proper damage boost is given to the aircraft launching. Further, if it’s the entire wrong direction, the squadron actually gets a slight debuff. I say slight because they’re already damage deficient as it is. This would make it so there’s now a decision to be made in regards to how and when to launch your aircraft. I’d also suggest changing the winds every few minutes as well, as this would negate any major disadvantage that one side would face vs. the other. By adhering to launches into the wind, the carrier captain can finally have a way to modify his rather sad current base damage. So if you like this idea, upvote it so it has a chance to be seen by devs. Help make carrier play great again!
  18. Why do all squadrons fly directly over a target as they drop ordnance? AA is already really effective, to the point where 8 aircraft will be reduced to 2 aircraft in the span of one bombing/torpedoing run, just because the entire squadron is exposed to AA fire the whole time. Carrier gameplay would be great if: Custom formations were allowed. Generating the ability to attack with all bombers at the same time. Or maybe attack from multiple directions simultaneously like in an Anvil formation. Complexity and the requisite skills goes up as a result creating more dynamic gameplay as opposed to what's available right now. Of course with the current MM these carrier players would dominate, so carriers would have to be limited to 1 or 2 per team depending on their resulting potency. Also the number of planes in a squadron could be reduced, AA could be rebalanced, etc... I can't be the first one to suggest this, nor the only one who thinks this way. But based on the fact that I don't really see CV's playing at tiers 8 and 10 makes me think that people get bored of the same un-intensive, low-skill gameplay that CV play currently gives.
  19. Thats_JasonBourne1

    Advice on Lexington

    Just bought lex yesterday. Does the default plane really that easy to shred ?
  20. Review of the KMS Bismarck Review of the USS Enterprise CV-6 The Review of the HMS Ark Royal! Enjoy! The review review of the IJN Akagi! Enjoy! Here's a quick summary of my current model kit project the IJN Akagi from Hasegawa 1/700 scale. Enjoy!
  21. Flavius_Julius_1

    Aircraft Carrier Bug

    So I was playing my HMS Hermes just now, and part way through the battle I had a squadron in the air, while the squadron was in the air I opened up the map to set my autopilot to re-position myself, left the map, then set myself up for an attack. Only when I left clicked, NOTHING HAPPENED. I thought no big deal, temporary bug, maybe going to a different squadron will fix it, so I hit the F key and tried again. Except that was only the beginning. I couldn't select another squadron, I could no longer speak in chat, I could open the map but when I clicked on it to set an autopilot nothing happened. I couldn't manually control my CV and drive it somewhere, nothing. The only thing I could do is press the enter key and then the tab key to select which chat I would theoretically want to type in, yet when I wanted to type nothing happened. So next thing was I went to the player support tab on the website (this did result in my CV dying), checked the relevant boxes, but then nothing. Nothing came up to let me type in my issue, there wasn't a submit button, nothing. So I am left to come here and vent it out and maybe get some real help on why this issue occurred, how to keep it from happening again, and maybe figure out why player support is not cooperating with me. Edit: I tabbed out to wait on the battle to end so I could try again and see what happens, and this is what I tabbed back into a few minutes later lol. (Btw at this point in the battle I had been dead for quite some time, so the battle report stating my death you can see is waaaayyyy out of date and is just another issue here lol.) When I have the patience again I'll load up later tonight and play, I had to use my task manager to kill the game as it had completely locked up. I can't wait for my brand new computer to show up tomorrow so I can install this game on an SSD and be done with it all lol.
  22. 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...
  23. Here's my box overview and progress report on Tamiya's USS Enterprise CV6 1/700th scale. Hope you enjoy!
  24. MakersMike

    Air defense question

    I'm pretty new, and I assumed something about planes attacking but now I'm not sure. When planes are attacking my ship, I notice that little airplane figure that I can move around with my mouse. I'm color blind, but I think it's orange. Am I supposed to aim that towards the attacking planes for better chance at shooting them down or what is that for? And is there a button I should push while aiming it or just point it towards the plane? Thanks
  25. My tactics are mostly developed for Ryujo. CVs have changed yet they remain the same. I still see the same mistakes CV players make now as they did before the update. At this point, my salt to this style of gameplay is lessened enough for me to play "normally". CVs were hated before, CVs are still hated now, and CVs will stay hated afterwards. What makes CVs seem more OP now than they were before? Who knows. The CV skillset was high before but it is much higher now. Communication Do your best to communicate but make sure to focus on the task in front of you Scout Scout either your side or the opposite side Find the weakest side you can find Your eyes are the team's eyes Do your best to not sacrifice your planes Move Set your ship's way points according to what your scouts find and where your team goes or does not go Take it slow and follow the safest side As the side becomes safer, raise your speed when possible One of the safest area's is the enemy spawn if you can get there without being seen Closer you are the faster your attack runs can be Recover Sometimes you are better of waiting than going onto another attack run so let your squads recover for as long as you can from zero Defending Do your best to defend your fleet but focus on your attack run When using the fighter consumable, make sure to drop it after the enemy attack run and a circle and a half in front of your allied ship, this way by the time your fighters can defend your allied ship will be in the circle and ready to counter another enemy attack run Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, go to your minimap and set your way point into a different direction so that you can avoid an hit but focus on your objective before taking control of the ship Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, change squads as many times as you can and use the fighter consumable in front of your ship, this will decimate the enemy(s) attack run (total of four fighter squads in the air is possible in short distance) Attack Find and attack the weakest and solo ships you can, do not attack heavy AA groups of ships Capping Be willing to cap Fight There is no use running from something you can't run from, whether that is enemy speed or gun range You have secondary guns, make use of them Most players won't expect a aircraft carrier to fight back Other I get my good days and my bad days Be fast, find the enemy, take a chance, be willing to cap, be willing to fight, miracles can happen Ryujo Skills & Upgrades
×