Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'CV'.



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 313 results

  1. For CV commander skills I'm using the following: #1: Air Supremacy (on most carriers) or Improved Engine Boost (the latter on Kaga) #2: Improved Engines (on most carriers) or Torpedo Bomber (the latter on Kaga) For #3 and #4 I consider the following skills to pick from: a) Aircraft Armor (-10% continuous AA damage reduction) b) Survivability Expert (+25 HP per ship tier) c) Enhanced Aircraft Armor (-25% damage reduction from AA shell explosions) So far I've always picked Aircraft Armor or Survivability Expert as skill #3 (open spoiler box for details on how I chose one of the two): As skill #4 I'd then pick Enhanced Aircraft Armor. However after reading a bit more on how flak works, my understanding is that the continuous damage portion is non-dodgeable, but the flak burst portion (which is buffed by Enhanced Aircraft Armor) is. That would indicate to me the following: Survivability Expert might be generally better than Aircraft Armor, because it also helps with a flak burst that the player fails to dodge. So perhaps this should be skill #3 in most (if not all) cases? Perhaps skill #4 should then be Aircraft Armor, since the damage from flak bursts is avoidable (how much would depend on player skills). And finally - assuming that the two points above are more or less correct, should Enhanced Aircraft Armor just be deferred to a later time or perhaps skipped altogether? It would be great, if more experienced CV players could provide some feedback on my thinking about those skills and provide corrections and additional thoughts where necessary.
  2. Guess it didn't take long for that to happen. Please be polite, no personal attacks etc.
  3. Hi everyone, I've played a lot of games in Saipan in the last year or so and before the commander skill change this month the 1 point ability (now retitled Air Supremacy) used to give +2 aircraft on deck in addition to the -5% faster plane regeneration time. On many CVs the +2 aircraft isn't too noticeable, but on the Saipan and its clone Sanzang, those extra two aircraft are sorely missed. I think if the plane regeneration time is going to stay the same, both boats ought to have those two aircraft per air wing permanent. Playing in randoms is hard enough if you're up-tiered (but almost too easy against tier VI boats) and those extra two aircraft are extremely important to being viable in the later stages of a game. Thank for listening, GB
  4. Their is no way for surface ships tier 3 to 7 to enjoy 4 cv matches... Please come play the na server and enjoy being screwed. 3 out of 4 tier 6 battles.... Tier 8 n tier 6 cv.... So much fun in an Italian tier 6 bb....
  5. Since I love the idea of a support carrier focused more on protecting my teammates than dealing damage, I tried a full interceptor build (all four of the support skills along with Squadron Consumables Mod 1) on Audacious in random battles during 10.0. I ended up switching back to a more standard (for me) damage mitigation and accuracy skills before the end of the free skill resets with 10.1. I've kept an American 19 point captain with the full interceptor build, however, for use in ranked and eventually clan battles. I made good use of this full interceptor captain in this last ranked season, and I saw on YouTube that @Ahskance (a much better CV player than me ) preferred this as well for ranked. With the smaller number of friendly ships to protect, you can make it work, and it is very powerful against FDRs, which are fairly common in competitive. What cripples the use of the full interceptor build in random is the -25% patrol times that is the penalty of the 4 point Enhanced Reaction skill. With the Squadron Consumables Mod 1 in slot 5, the longest you can keep the Interceptors on station is 67 seconds, the first ~7 seconds of which are warm up time, where they won't shoot anything down. Without the SCM1 in slot 5, you are limited to 45 seconds patrol time, with, again 7 seconds of that for warm up when you first call them to patrol. I've found that I'm more effective in random battles using SCM1 along with the 1 point Search and Destroy skill as well as the 2 point Patrol Group Leader skill at preventing strikes against my teammates due to the 90 s patrol times this allows. I've shot down more planes on average using this configuration as well, since the red CV is less likely to wait out the patrol fighters, and more willing to hazard sending his planes into the fighters for a strike in the hopes of recalling his surviving planes before my fighters shoot them down. Unless Wargaming wants the full interceptor/support CV to be limited to competitive modes, they need to eliminate or significantly reduce the -25% action time of the fighter/interceptor consumable that is attached to Enhanced Reactions. A 25% penalty is a high price to pay for any 4 point skill. Alternatively, they could leave ER as is and move it down to a 3 point skill, while moving Interceptors back up to the 4 point skill where it started and adding a buff that prolongs the patrol time if you select interceptors, effectively cancelling the -25% penalty on ER. ER is a great skill, and makes fighters work they way I always wanted them to, but the negatives outweigh the power of the skill except in ranked and (I'm assuming) clan battles.
  6. To begin, a brief summary of the current discourse regarding CV and AA balance: Surface Ship Player: CVs are OP. No matter how many planes we shoot down, they get a drop off. Our AA does nothing. CV Player: Are you kidding me? If I get uptiered at all, I get shredded. I'm launching half-strength squadrons two minutes in. Now, a brief history lesson: AA guns were not placed on ships to shoot down enemy aircraft. Fleet aircraft were the primary weapon against enemy aircraft. They were emplaced to protect the ship. If every aircraft of an enemy squadron survived, but they were unable to drop effectively due to the intensity of the AA fire, the primary mission of the gunners was a success (although the secondary mission, to attrite enemy men and materiel, would be a failure). Similar to covering fire during an infantry movement, ship AA was dependent upon the self-preservation instincts of the enemy pilot to be fully functional. This is (partially) why the kamikazes of WWII and the Exocets of the Falklands were such effective weapons: neither a missile nor a man bent on self-immolation has much of a penchant for survival and as such, the AA battery must destroy the incoming threat, as it cannot be deterred. But what does this have to do with my arcade game? Prior to update 8.0, the DFAA consumable affected incoming aircraft in the same way that intense AA fire would have historically. It dispersed the incoming attack, reducing the probability of a successful attack. 8.0 took the CV player off of the bridge and into the cockpit, and DFAA was likewise changed to a simple DPM boost. The surface Ship now had no option but to shoot down the entire incoming squadron, which now functioned like guided missiles, rather than planes. After all, it would make no sense if shots the player fired directly suddenly scattered just because their intended victim activated a consumable, would it? Enter Dazzle Under update 10.0, a mechanic has been introduced which temporary increases the dispersion of incoming fire when activated. DFAA can, and should, function the same way. Whether this is is accomplished by increasing the size of the aiming reticle, by increasing the dispersion of the ordinance dropped, or by shaking and buffeting the squadron (such that a CV player could learn to pilot through it, thus adding an element of skill to CV play), I will leave to the developers. This provides warship players with a more effective counterplay, without drastically increasing the numbers of aircraft lost during strikes, all while retrieving some of this historical accuracy the game has lost over the years.
  7. ST 0.9.12, balance changes and changes to test ships, removal of Somers. - Development blog BETA (worldofwarships.com) IV HŌSHŌ: The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron lowered from 6 to 5; The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight lowered from 2 to 1; The number of torpedo bombers on the deck lowered from 9 to 8; Torpedo bombers restoration time increased from 59 to 71 s; Maximum torpedo damage increased from 5,400 to 5,800. IV LANGLEY: Maximum torpedo damage lowered from 4,233 to 3,500; The chance to cause flooding on torpedo hit reduced from 33% to 30%. ----------------------------------- I guess this is one way to push the seal clubbers out of T4 CV?
  8. Being a big fan of Jingles......
  9. Lose_dudes

    The story of Ark Royal

    This is for all of you who only know the superficial details. The life story of an old aircraft carrier. I was gonna do more about snoopy but changed my mind.
  10. warheart1992

    CV Rework, 2 years on.

    It's been two years since update 0.8.0, or as it's also known, just CV rework. Thought it would be interesting to take a look two years back down the memory lane. More specifically, the goals and motivations behind the rework as stated by WG itself, the huge change that was undertaken, and the outcome that I guess is still ongoing. I won't be including my own opinion on the rework that much; not here to pass judgement or offend anyone. Just showing a few milestones on how the rework came to be, up until 0.8.0 was released to the masses. Things started near fall of 2018; CVs were a major talking point in general, and there was some talk on reworking them into something more popular, player friendly, and not that disconnected from surface combat. Then this announcement comes in: https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-cv-rework-announced/ People were understandably wary, but at the same time optimistic, as RTS CVs were relatively unpopular as a class with huge gameplay impact, especially at the hands of skilled players. In addition tests were announced for players to see for themselves the way the revamped CVs worked. Of course, there were still concerns as is usual of new things anyway, so in December some more details were given to address some of them in a FAQ. https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/cv-rework-faq/2257558527903815/?comment_id=2257606844565650 Again however, most people were cautiously optimistic for something fresh and interesting. Of course there was a camp that hated CVs in every form, as well as veteran RTS CV players that considered the time they had devoted to learning the ins and outs of RTS CVs to be completely wasted by such a move. Still, the release date of 0.8.0 was fast approaching, with the patchnotes and set date being announced on January 29th: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-080-takeoff/ https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-play/ I won't delve much into the details of what happened during that patch, will just link a video of a battle by Gaishu_Isshoku a week or so after the patch. ....And here we are, two years on.... Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.
  11. I used to be a CV main before the CV rework, but the new CVs really didn't move me, and I have been playing more of the other ship types, and performing better in them. Tonight, I found my old niche with the new CVs thanks to the new skills in the skill rework, and I am sharing it! Strafing lives!!!!! https://www.twitch.tv/videos/896363593 BTW, if anyone can teach me how to embed, it would be greatly appreciated.
  12. Because there are now new support skills for cvs, that can boost the effectiveness of the fighter consumable, has anyone had any success using a build like this on Graf Zeppelin? I was looking in the fitting tool and you can increase the fighters range to 3.6 km. Combined that with Zeppelins very fast aircraft means this cv could have the role of supporting teammates by warding off enemy carrier attacks, and then using secondary’s when ships get to close. Could be useful in clan and ranked I imagine Graf Zeppelin players, what are your thoughts?
  13. 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)
  14. Can I get your opinion on a Graf captain build ? I so far on my 11pt captain have:Air Supremacy, Improved Engines, both secondary mods (Cause graf zeppelin), and Survivability expert. Graf mostly relies on her plane speed, namely her fast torpedo bombers, so would proximity fuse make sense as my next skill ? Dive bombers aren’t a main damage dealer, so bomb upgrades aren’t a focus, and my planes normally fly out of aa with only orange to red damage on one plane so armor isn’t a major problem, would getting demo expert make sense, or just proximity fuse ?
  15. Doesn't help the new players also. Thoughts?
  16. 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.
  17. The US Navy has Franklin Delano Roosevelt as their Tier 10 Premium Aircraft carrier. The German Navy will possibly have 2 Tier 10 Premium Aircraft Carriers: M. Immelmann and W. Voss can't find the image =( So how about considering a Tier 10 Premium Aircraft Carrier for Imperial Japanese Navy? IJN Shinano Ship Cost - 31000 Steel because there is no ship cost 31000 Steel Hit Point... If we compare the hit points between Hakuryu(63,100), Midway(67,600), F.D.R.(67,600), Manfred Von Richthofen(65,300) and Audacious(63,400), we can get the lowest HP - 63,100 and highest HP - 67,600. Hit Point for IJN Shinano should be between 64,000 and 66,000. Length 268m Beam 36.3m Draught 10.3m Secondary Armaments 8 Twin 127mm dual-purpose guns Firing Range - 5.2km Rate of Fire - 18 shots/min Reload time - 3.33 seconds HE shell - 100mm HE type 98 (same as Hakuryu) Initial HE shell velocity - 800 - 900m/sec Chance of fire on target caused by HE shell - 6 - 11% AA Defence 35 triple 25mm AA guns Average damage per second - between 110 - 170 Firing Range - between 3 - 5km 12 28 barrelled 120mm AA defence rocket launchers (28 explosions per salvo) Average damage per second - between 290 - 340 Firing Range - between 5 - 8km 40mm Bofors "chi" type 98 Average damage per second - 242 Firing Range - 3.51km (according to Hakuryu, doesn't need to be added) Maneuverability Top speed - 29 - 35 knots Turning radius - 1108m Rudder Shift time - 20 - 24 seconds Concealment(Shinano is smaller than Hakuryu) Detectability by sea Shinano - 12 - 14km Hakuryu - 15.66km Detectability by air Shinano - 8 - 10km Hakuryu - 11.42km Aircraft Compliment Rocket Attack Planes - Ki 84 hei Hayate Rockets in payload - 8 damage - 2000 - 3000 Fire Chance - 11% Cruise speed - 150 - 180 Hit points - 1500 - 2000 Squadron size - 9 planes, 3 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 14 Aircraft Restoration time - 60 - 80 seconds Torpedo planes - B7A2 Ryusei Torpedo in payload - 1 Range - 3 - 4km damage - 3000 - 4000 flooding chance - 43 - 58% Cruising speed - 120 - 140 Hit points - 1700 - 2300 Squadron size - 12 plane, 4 per attack run Number of aircraft on deck - 18 Aircraft Restoration time - 70 - 90 seconds Dive bombers - B6N2 Bombs in payload - 1 Bomb type - armour piercing maximum damage - 7000 - 11000 Cruising speed - 130 - 150 Hit points - 1300 - 1900 Squadron size - 12 planes, 3 or 4 per attack run number of aircraft on deck - 18 Restoration time - 80 - 100 seconds
  18. Am I alone here? I keep seeing the bombs going to the corners or all over the place...never ever center it's like a tier x Graf Zepplin. Edit: yup, bombers are trash now.
  19. 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
  20. After thousands (no kidding) of daily containers I finally got a ship. And what a ship!! Tier VI Erich Loewenhardt In all fairness to WG, I am not a fan of CV's but, since the rework, I have actually played them. I still encourage no subs...
  21. Two CV's in TX? I dont even buy premium already lmaoo
  22. Please take the poll and then comment if applicable. I notice that a lot of people complaining about CV play and CVs have not/do not play CVs. This poll may be relevant for data and balancing purposes, so take it seriously. Edit: Results and takeaways Game designed for surface ships, planes broke. Most experienced CV players think there needs to be another total rework. There are large differences between how individual ships perform against aircraft and CV counterplay is dependent on teamwork vs an individual, thus is very difficult. Solutions: Most players want better control over their individual AA. Players also want the CV to be more limited in its capability to send and replenish aircraft. Reading and thinking about the comments and results, I recommend 4 things: 1. De-emphasize carrier vs destroyer gameplay. Carriers currently ruin the playstyle of most DDs and are a hard counter to DDs, especially early in game. This makes DD life very difficult. CV vs DD play should be focused more toward hunting and spotting one or the other. I note that I do play both ship types and the interaction is heavily dependent on the skill, pre planning, and team cooperation for both players. I've torpedo'd a lot of CVs, and had a lot of DDs sunk by rockets or spotting. Currently, my best recommendation is to reduce the rocket attack plane squadron size by one attack flight. 2. Emphasize carrier vs carrier gameplay. The two carriers should essentially be dueling for control of the air for most of the match. I know WG did not want to include dogfighting, but this may be a solution. Rocket attack planes for example could be used to intercept torpedo bombers and diver bombers, etc. Rewards should be adjusted so that CVs that engage the enemy CV are fairly compensated for their time and effort, and game mechanics structured to make this both engaging and rewarding. 3. Bottom tier all carriers for the time being. Tier 6 should only fight T6-8, Tier 8 only T9-10, and T10 is stuck in straight T10 matches. 4. Rework AA to make it more complex and involved. Players should be able to see in depth stats about their AA and chose how it targets planes and squadrons.
  23. So, the crates thingy has me so bored that makes the CV thingy looks fun in comparison. When bored I tend to think about useless stuff like how to improve the CV issues without doing any actual improvement... The rules are simple, you can't change anything significant related to CVs, nor mechanics, nor values. You need to come up with some convoluted way to fix the issue without actually fixing the core problems. Here is what I thought: Reducing the "visibility" of the problem. Taking a page from the old pre-rework CV, one good thing about them was they were few in the queue. By having fewer matches with CVs on them whatever problems they had, were less visible to the players. Now, we can't really ask for a decrease of popularity of CVs which will clearly go against the main purpose of the rework, but what if we could "dilute" the number of CVs in queue and their impact on player's game experience?. My answer is, we need dedicated procedural generated dedicated CV Operations/scenarios for every tier in order to draw a portion of CV players out of the PvP modes and give them an option that is both more rewarding and entertaining than regular Coop. Also, we need to expand the MM and introduce "special ships" slot to MM, so the surface ships numbers are unaffected by the addition of extra "special units" (CVs, Subs in the future). A big part of the problem of having 2 CV matches (for example) is that their attention becomes spread into even fewer units, attrition also becomes less significant. In a regular CV match the relation of CV per surface ship is 1:11 which in practical terms is somewhat reasonable. In double CV matches it falls to 1:5 which is almost universally agreed to be undesirable, extra slots would bring this number to 1:6 (far from desirable still, but at least an improvement). Even more desirable would be to make a special rule for 2 CV games and make them drop in larger maps with expanded Player numbers, lets say 14 per side (1:7). Finally, reducing the CV tier spread to +1/-1 would instantly alleviate the more notorious cases of "my CV/AA is worthless". As practical example, my experience (related to CVs) on playing tier 7 has been more comfortable than playing tier 6 because I'm not subjected to the extreme disparity of being matched against a +2 CV. Now, I know about the problem that would involve in forming Divs with a CV, but well, little sacrifices need to be made and such a Div should be treated as a fail Div, meaning it will work in a +1/-2 tier spread. So CVs remain unaffected in its core but the environment becomes a little more "tolerant" for them. Voila! ...discuss.
  24. As a PvE main, I get bored at times with the repetitive and highly predictable flow of Co-op. So I went to PvP and decided to bring Florida out. Here's saving the best for last. Always a pleasure to send a CV to sleep with the fishes and whales. Just like in Co-op.
  25. JTM78

    AA vs Planes

    Why is it that CV can make two to five against enemy ships while losing little to nothing? I am finding that the AA of equal tier ships vs planes still allow 3 or more runs and god forbid if the ship is two tiers lower. There is something seriously wrong with the balance of AA vs planes. Maybe CV should lose health for every plane that gets shoot down?!
×