Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'FIGHTERS'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Filter by number of...

Found 72 results

  1. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  2. First I would like to introduce myself. My name is John Daley, ( known as JedMad within the Game ). I am a disabled Vietnam Veteran, having served in the United States Navy during the 70's. My Grandfather and Great Uncles all served during WW2 and My uncles all served in the post war years throughout the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and the cold war. I grew up listening to tales from my grandfather and his brothers of the naval engagements that they experienced during WW2. That is probably why I also became a Naval historian of that period and have researched extensively every single Naval engagement during WW2 including naval engagements such as took place in the English channel between German MTB's vs British MTB's, Destroyers, and aircraft, Wolf pack attacks on convoy, all the way up to the Huge battles in and around Leyte Gulf in 1944. I have been playing Naval war-gaming since the 1970's when I and some friends would take our waterline models of ships with our calculators and tape measures, and commandeer a local parking lot every Sunday in Norfolk, Virginia and spend Hours and Hours re-fighting naval engagements. With the advent of computers I never lost my passion for the game. When I saw that you were releasing World of Warships I was pleasantly surprised at the Quality of the Game as well as the detail you have worked into the actual game play. As a pure gunnery/torpedo game World of Warships is unsurpassed. I also feel that there is some room of improvement however. That is why I have taken the time to present my views on how the game might be improved. I dearly hope that you will take the time to consider my thoughts on this subject. I enjoy everything about the game except for one thing. Carrier Play, I feel, needs to be re-assessed. I used to really enjoy playing Carrier's...until they introduced the strafing element into the game play. I do believe that the strafing element could be a useful tool for the above average player but I think that the idea that a single squadron of 4 to 7 planes could NEVER have had the ability to take out an entire strike group of several squadrons of Torpedo, Dive bombers and their fighter escort in one single pass. Historically, getting a jump on an enemy strike could disrupt any attack in progress but think about this for a minute. Could that single fighter squadron actually totally wipe out a large strike group that quickly? As an example of what I am talking about, If there is someone sending out a Japanese strike, of 2 TB squadrons ( 8 Planes ), 2 Dive bomber squadrons ( 8 to 10 planes ) escorted by 2 fighter squadrons ( a further 8 to 10 planes ), equaling a total of 24 to 28 aircraft or an American strike, group consisting of 1 Torpedo squadron ( 6 planes ) 2 dive bomber squadrons ( 12 to 14 planes ) escorted by 1 or 2 fighter squadrons ( 12 to 14 planes ), totaling 30 to 34 aircraft, and they are attacked by a single fighter squadron of between 4 to 7 fighters how could those few fighters actually destroy ALL of the strike group in one pass, especially if that strike group is escorted by fighter squadrons? My contention is that if you assume that every attacking fighter can shoot down one aircraft on that first pass, that would leave a large portion of that strike intact. If the strike group has No fighter escort it should take several passes to enable a single fighter squadron to wipe out all of the opposing torpedo and dive bombers. If on the other hand the strike group ARE escorted by fighters you must assume that, after that first pass, which would only take out only a small percentage of the attack group and any escorting fighters, the remaining escort fighters would then engage the attacking fighters to allow at least some of the attack group to proceed on their way to their targets. In conclusion, I believe that there has to be a serious re-work of how effective STRAFING works within the game. At the lower tiers of play, where strafing is disabled, Carrier play is MUCH more enjoyable but that quickly disappears as you begin to play the higher tiers. I like the way that escorting fighters would engage any attacking fighters before the attacking fighters could get to the strike groups at the lower levels of play. At the higher tiers where strafing is allowed escorting fighters have NO chance to engage attacking fighters unless you MANUALLY attack the incoming fighters long before they get anywhere near your strike group. I have heard all the arguments against changing the current way strafing is employed within the Game and I realize that this IS a Game, and doesn't necessarily reflect actual historical data on this subject. I believe, however, that once you have included Carriers into what was primarily a Naval gunnery and torpedo game, you should at least make Carrier play at least as effective, as far as the damage you can achieve, as when playing a straight gunnery/torpedo format. I know that to most players and big gun enthusiasts this issue may seem like a minor detail within the game, but if you want to keep a semblance accuracy involving The Aircraft Carrier's role in History you must admit that Carriers gradually supplanted big guns as the Capital ship to this very day. Carrier Play, as it currently stands, when you consider the High effectiveness of AA values as well as the way strafing is set up currently, almost NEVER enables a Carrier driver to achieve the kind of damage scores as can any other ship type within the game. Those of us who have achieved some success driving carriers would love see some modifications to how carrier play is currently configured. I hope that you will consider seriously what I have proposed. I feel that correcting this issue would only improve the game and make it more enjoyable for everyone else. Please address this problem.
  3. Has Anyone Else noticed how US CV's have become unplayable due to the removal of a fighter group? I have Gone up against other carriers with 2 fighters groups and got my fighters removed (upgraded and have HP and DPS skills). Enterprise has 2 squads of each, Lexington has 1, Shokaku has 1/2/3, graf Zep has 2. Seems like the only way to get to 9/10 is by losing every single game, or buying your way to 9 and 10
  4. The air-to-air strafing option for fighters is just wrong on many levels and it should be eliminated for aircraft-to-aircraft engagements. It creates far too much damage to the target squadron and is a completely unrealistic tactic. Aircraft operate in three dimensions so a wingtip to wingtip strafing run of fighters against other aircraft makes no sense. For example, if the target squadron drops 50 meters in altitude the aggressor squadron's bullets would simply fly overhead. It also assumes that the target squadron would not maneuver which is also unrealistic. Fighter vs. fighter contact at the merge is not a jousting match, it's a 3 dimensional battle. The current strafing profile represents a 2D mindset in a 3D environment. If it appears in any WWII era fighter tactics documents, which I doubt, it is likely only in very early (pre-1930s) air-to-air tactics manuals. Strafing would, however, be a wonderful addition for fighter-to-ship attacks. Damage to the armored ships would be minimal so it would only be useful against a DD or possibly a CV, and it would need to be limited to fighters shooting .50Cal or 12.5mm ammo and above (i.e. higher tier aircraft). This tactic was used successfully in WWII by allied fighters and other specially equipped aircraft using API or HE rounds. Smaller caliber weapons just wouldn't penetrate even thinly armored DDs so the lower tier fighters shouldn't have that option. Lastly, many WWII carrier based fighters were equipped to carry smaller bombs. That could be made a refit option should the captain choose it. It would be an especially effective option if all enemy fighters have been taken out as it would give the remaining fighters additional game play.
  5. When I go against other Independence fighters, mine always lose, so what am I doing wrong? I have Air Groups Mod 1 & 2 and Dog Fighting Expert, Air Supremacy. I have the Grumman F6F-3. I'm not losing to strafing runs, its mostly one-on-one dog fighting. Most of the time it is over open water / no enemy ships around. My planes have full ammo and full squadron... Is there another Mod/ Add-on I am not aware of? Is there a technique I am not aware of (ALT + Kill)?? (Cont + Destroy all Planes)?? (Shift + Lock Missiles)???
  6. What good is attacking if you can't defend your planes and your allies. Learn about some basic fighter controls today. See the complete series (WIP) of tutorials here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhX-9tFWCzgQHDrwCEm8_5c4bnlUTyZPe
  7. Greetings all. I have a question that may have a simple answer or someone can point out something I have missed. I have been playing this game for some time and just noticed (I got a new computer and monitor @ 1440P so now I see details I hadn't before) I do not see spotters or fighters in port or in game on the T8, 9, 10 German battleships. Am I missing something? Yes they deploy and work in game but unlike other ships you don't see them on there catapults.
  8. The Great Gorgon

    So I recently got a 5 star match on the second Halloween mission and got the really awesome Great Gorgon camo. I already have an almost max upgraded Shokaku and read somewhere that the Gorgon camo equipped all the planes with the bat skin. However, when I went to put on the camo, the planes did not have the bat camo. Is this right? Or am I wrong that the planes get the bat camo?
  9. Hosho Aircraft

    I was playing 2 Hosho v Hosho games where our fighters engaged with no AA around, I have aircraft servicing expert on my captain (the only ability that affects this fight in a major way) +5% HP and Airgroup Modifications 1 +10% AVG DMG and none of the fights had Aireal Superiority on the commander so it should be a close and even fight, but both fights ended up in a 0-4 or 0-3 in their favor, is one of the modifications or commander abilities bugged and if not the aircraft need to be reworked to include less RNG especially if being a CV means being tactical.
  10. Playing CV, sometimes, but not always, when I click on the first squadron, the game instead thinks I am selecting the ship. When I click on the other side of the map (where I want to send fighters), it instead directs the ship to go there. I don't always notice the error, and my CV heads right into the enemy. I have watched this happen many times when I KNOW I clicked on the first squadron, not the ship. I don't have any mods installed.
  11. So, these are two things that I understand core concepts, but especially given my want of CV's to be better balanced, I want to understand better the exact workings and meanings of numbers. And if they've been answered before, sorry, my search foo tends to suck, just point me the right way. My main one is fighters, I can only guess what the ammo numbers actually mean, beyond obviously that one has more ammo than the other. One of those things that, someone has an answer great, but not so much worried as the two main stats for fighter vs fighter combat - HP and DPS. Does this work the same way as AA DPS essentially, DPS/HP=chance to be shot down. If that is the case, are the HP and DPS stats for the group, per plane, or a mix of both? Or is it something of a different mechanic I don't know? Playing with it the various ways assuming it works like AA, the numbers I get can be weird, Taking Hiryu and Ranger, the numbers as they are, or applied to the group, vs the opposing nation, are fairly even - 3.6% IJN vs 3.9% USN, and 2.4 IJN vs 5.9 USN. Though, these numbers seem low given that's basically chance per second. Though, doing it as DPS is for each plane, with HP being the group total, IJN is 14.6 and USN is 23.8 against the opposing country with 0 modifiers, which given what I see in game for how long dogfights last, and how they usually play out, seems a bit more accurate to how it may work, as well as DPS drop off that seems to happen as planes are lost. However I'm curious if anyone more knowledgeable on these specifics can confirm or deny that's how this works? Dive bombers, this may come across as a silly question with an obvious answer, what do the dispersion numbers actually mean? Kaga's is 71-177m, Saipan's, 142-355m, Hiryu's is 134-355m. Is the lower number manual drop circle size while the larger is "panicked" dispersion with (at least in most cases except maybe Saipan) the actual normal dispersion somewhere in the middle? Or is the lower number the normal auto drop while larger is panicked with MD being some other number? I recall mention of DB manual drops being a certain percent more accurate but that could have been wrong or a specific ship. These may be a bit too nitty-gritty for people to know, but figured I'd ask because I know players have figured out various formula's and all that get used. And it's one of those things I really think should be on the wiki when looking at CV mechanics. But given at this point I have the free time, if I post about this kind of stuff and maybe changes to make, I'm kinda tired of just saying things like "Make the USN DB's more accurate" and would rather give more specific numbers and better understand why USN vs IJN fighters, higher tier vs lower tier fighters, seem to be problematic with one usually handily beating the other.
  12. GZ Air dominance load out

    5f/0/0 with her awesome secondaries able reach out and touch something. This actually is an option.
  13. I'm very excited about the upcoming German carrier Graf Zeppelin and would like I t to be a success. I had a couple of ideas I would like to share to bring it into a well balanced state. Idea #1 keep the Graf Zeppelin as a dive bombers carrier but give her two types of bombs. HE 500KG and AP Fritz bombs. The AP bombs are rocket guided and could be launched from say 500-800 meters, while the HE bombers have to come closer. She would have two flight deck options. Two fighters, one AP dive bomber, two HE dive bombers. Or Three fighters, one AP dive bomber, one HE dive bomber. The second group could have two HE groups two but you get the idea. I think a three fighter squadron option Zep would allow them to combat Enterprise band Shokaku for those who want to have push a air war, and two dive bomber groups as strong as the ones I have read about will still be effective. Also having two different kinds of dive bombers will prevent a overkill strike. Three HE bomber groups would sink destroyers too quickly. Three groups of AP bombers would shred CA and BB too quickly. Balanced might be worth testing and would be more interesting to operate. Idea #2 is to make it tier 6 with 48 planes and 6km range secondaries, however we all know that will not make as much money. Anyway these are my thoughts. What would you like to see?
  14. I recently fought in a ranked match where the other Indy's fighters would wipe out my planes (both torps & bombers) in a single pass like a knife through butter. In one case the fighters whacked a squadron of 7 dive bombers that were keeping station over two battleships. I have not experienced this before, and am wondering what is causing the extreme mismatch? This is from the current ranked season (all Tier 6 ships). Thanks
  15. I have been testing a new little technique that ye can use while using 2 fighters to counter say like Saipan... 1. tie up his fighters with one fighter groups with your 1st fighter squadron 2. move your 2nd fighter to do a strafe on the dogfight 3. after you set the strafe but before they begin strafing disengage fighter squadron 1 4. reap the reward as you wipe the enemy fighters I hope this helps USN AS CVs a little with IJN but since everyone that has 2 squadrons could use this I'm not counting on it
  16. Hello, Recently I was playing a game in my tier 7 Ranger, up against the US Premium carrier, Saipan. Although the Saipan has significant advantages, I was able to go hand-for-hand in our engagements being an experienced CV captain. Throughout the game, we were pretty much even; trading fighters for bombers, etc. About 5 minutes in, the enemy Saipan utilized a new feature, which allows carriers to escape a fighter dogfight at the cost of one fighter. As many of you may know, the Saipan does not have to give up a fighter in order to leave the dogfight, being a premium ship. The enemy carrier captain used this mechanic to repeatedly engage and escape from fights with my fighter squadrons at no cost to his own fleet. This is where the exploit comes in. When the enemy fighters left the fight, my fighters would be stuck in one spot for 4-6 seconds until the game updated and I was able to control them again. The other CV used this uncontrollable down time to bring his other fighter squadron in and manual strafe my fighters to death without collateral damage to his own. If you do not understand, basically the CV is leaving the dogfight because of his ability to not lose a plane doing so. He is then using the time my fighters cannot move during to manual strafe them for free kills without harming his own fighters. There is nothing I can do when my planes are stuck in place and the CV was able to kill all of my fighters without losing any himself. The only thing that allowed me to pick a few off is when he had to go back for ammo because my squadron sizes were significantly bigger. I think this pause time when the enemy exits a fight was overlooked by the team when the mechanic was added a few weeks ago. I did some quick browsing on the forums and did not see any topics related to it. Hopefully this post can reach someone who can explain whether this was intentional or not or get something done to patch this.
  17. CV servicing bonus

    Some thought here, bear with me. I think it would be pretty cool to add a bonus to the time to servicing aircraft if you are turned "into the wind". Anytime aircraft are launched and recovered, aircraft carriers normally point into the wind to aid in launch and recovery. It could also give a bonus to the flight time of your planes returning. This tactic would push CV's to get out from behind rocks a little bit more and add a bit of strategy to movements of the fleet. The CV itself is usually forgotten in a fight, but this would give CV captains a bit more of an importance to the fight. If you wanted to make it fun, have the wind change direction a bit and make it die on the edges of the map so you cant park there and collect it. I wouldn't penalize a player for not using the bonus, but even if it was small, I think it would add to the CV experience. A small bonus to returning aircraft would keep the CV game moving and....you would earn it. =] I'd like to know what you guys think. Thanks.
  18. So I was curious as to why I got beat, 1 vs 1 by Bogue fighters Tuesday, and I don't fully understand why. Here's the details: We both had 6 fighters in our squad The fight was a 'tie-up' and no straffing had occurred. The fight was over friendly ships (pathetic AA, but still a boost) My Captain had Aircraft Servicing Expert (+5% to HP) My Bogue had Air Group Modification 1 (+10% DPS of guns on Aircraft) My Bogue had Flight Control Modification 1 (-10% to aircraft servicing time) My Bogue did not have Air Groups Modification 2 (+20% to fighter survivability) So my question is, how did he beat me each time? I would figure being over a Kongo and near a cruiser would have given me the edge, even if if had Air Groups Modification 1 for the extra Fighter HP. Could he have used Dog Fighting Expert, and how does that work? We were both Bogues, and the Fighters on her, don't exist on the Langley. Is it about the Fighters or the Ships? Could he have used the 2nd Tier Fighters to gain a 10% DPS boost on my 3rd Tier Fighters? Could have have used the 1st Tier Fighters to gain a 20% DPS boost on my 3rd Tier Fighters? My other question is, when should I be taking Air Group Modification 2 over Flight Control Modification 1? Is the 2 seconds difference in take off time worth the better HP on my fighters?
  19. Idea to balance CV's

    Right now things with CV's are kinda bad... Not terrible but they could use a LOT of work. And that is why I am posting today! Fighter power in many situations is a BIG problem! And I am not talking USN vs IJN wise First let's look at stock vs Fully upgraded -Fully upgraded fighters have more HP (Issue comes up in dogfights.) -Have more speed -Have more firepower (Issue come up in dogfights.) -Less ammo So given this here's My idea. Fully upgraded fighters should get -More Ammo -More speed -Same firepower (encounters would be equal.) -Same HP (encounters would be equal.) Moduals, and Captain Skills regarding HP or Firepower of fighters could be replaced with. -Aircraft ammo -Aircraft accuracy -Aircraft sight range If you guys really want to have a skill like the air superiority skill then make it apply ONLY to bombers. These are my general thoughts on the situation as it stands. I personally think if the devs go this route they could make balancing CV's against each other much easier, and open up more choice's for setups instead of just one IDEAL route to go with... What do you guys think?
  20. CV advice needed

    I was playing CV tonight (Hiryu), and I found my 2 squad of fighters were vanished within 1 or 2 second, and my fighters were in full health, fighters upgraded, and I am just facing another Hiryu, what the heck happened to my fighters, and what can I prevent it next time from loosing 8 fighters at once? or, how can I do it as well?
  21. Now I have been thinking about this for the past few days as a long time carrier player, and like most I have found that a lot of battles seem kinda one sided... Now most people would say the balance issue is USA vs IJN carriers, but I'm not sure that is entirely the case.... For the most part I think this has to do with captain skills and modules. PS. I will be leaving Bombers out of this talk for the most part due to them being a carrier VS everything else issue (that I think has for the most part been fixed as of late.) For example with most of the other classes even a stock ship can easily beat a fully upgraded ship no problem. This is due mostly to player skill, teamwork, and a tiny bit of luck... But it works! For carriers however I doesn't work this way... Even if you haven't played a carrier you know it's almost always a 1 on 1 fight, with maybe a tiny 2 on 2 fight every now and again, Most of which is one higher tier carrier and a lower tier one working together... BUT let's get to my main point! Carriers, don't have optional parts when it comes to fighting or holding back other carriers... This is due to, in large part dogfight being completely automated, Any Carrier without upgrades when it comes to dogfighting will ALWAYS lose. Got Less planes? You lose. Don't got fully upgraded aircraft? You Lose. Don't got modules? You lose... And so on for the most part... Also some modules tend to favor one side over the others, So since I got my game open right now let's run through em all! (I'll leave out upgraded aircraft since you already have seen my point there.) First Moduals! Slot 1 1.Air Groups Modification 1: increase fighter damage by 10% Fighters are the only thing that really matter in a carrier vs carrier fight for the most part so anybody without this will probably be in a world of hurt... Slot 2 1.Flight Control Modification 1: Not a big deal for the most part so I think this one is fine since it mostly concerns bombers... 2.Air Groups Modification 2: Fighter HP +20% Makes it even harder for a player without this to take down someone with this upgrade... Again fighter combat is Automated... Slot 3 only really has travel time and bomber HP which don't really cover fighter VS fighter combat... Moving on! SKILLS! This get's kinda complex cause some are good and some are useless now... First one is at level 3 (so you need a level 6 Captain.) Dogfighting Expert: For those of you who don't know this only effects carriers who have lower tier planes then there opponent... Which doesn't happen anymore due to carriers always being the same tier... or unless your facing a saipan which already has less planes then the other ships it's tier. (yes I know a carrier with upgraded planes, might benefit from this however when said carrier is fully upgraded this skill becomes useless... (level 10 Captain) Aircraft Servicing Expert : only problem here is once again the boost to fighter HP, which again is due to the way dogfights work... (Level 15 Captain) Air Supremacy: Extra fighter = Extra HP and Extra damage... Need I say more? Also there is a problem of IJN vs USN necessity vs options. Anything with fighter HP? IJN Necessity USN Option Anything with fighter damage? IJN Necessity USN Option Anything with service time? USN Necessity IJN Option The extra fighter? IJN Necessity USN Option So some of you may ask why? Well the USN needs more damage output so they need faster delivery. However with the IJN there fighters are always outnumbered and outgunned so they need as much of a buff as they can get. This makes it very unfriendly to newer players trying the class cause anybody with skills or the right parts can curb stomp them... But what about the Hakuryu vs Midway debate? Well this may have something to do with the way things increased over time. the jumps in squad numbers have been fairly consistent most of the time, however Hakuryu got one while midway didn't. So Hakuryu got a extra squad and some extra hanger space to store them. Where as Midway is just a Essex with an outrageous hanger capacity. Heck her top load outs are even the same... One option is to remove the Hakuryu's 8th squad making it 7 just like the taiho, and giving it the same load outs as taiho This would make it so like the Midway it's a improved tier 9 with more longevity, cause as it stands though the Hakuryu does better overall I find you tend to lose more planes and run out during the match VS midway players... As well as while they are not perfectly balanced essex and taiho seem to be more even then there tier 10 counterparts. so to summarize the points to contemplate here are! Fighter imbalance based on -Modules -Captain Skills -Upgraded aircraft Carrier Game play automation And the tier 10 load outs So what are your guys thoughts on the matter?
  22. Strafing:

    Strafing is your only chance of winning against an opponent who has a superior fighter force compared to yours. Right now, strafing is incredibly hard to pull off successfully, and it's very unforgiving if you miss. I have a suggestion that will make fighter combat more skill-based and reliant on strafing (rather than just point/click), and AS more skill-based as well. 1. Reduce the DPS of a single strafe, and reduce ammo consumption of strafes: Right now, a successful strafe means that your opponent will get all of his planes wiped out. Instead of having an all or nothing kind of chance, we should make strafes only able to shoot down 2-3 planes. But in return, you will now be able to strafe more times in succession without rearming, making strafing a more viable option in fighter vs fighter combat. 2. Reduce the damage output of non-strafe attacks, and increase ammo loadout: In order to make AS more skill reliant, locking your fighters will now do less damage than before. Players will now have to rely more on strafing in order to shoot down enemy bombers as well. However, since strafing uses up a lot of ammo, the ammo will have to be increased in order to prevent fighters from having to go back to rearm too frequently. Thanks for reading, and please leave a comment below!
  23. ...this one is decidedly positive. I just finished a standard battle on the Trident map while trying to get my sea-legs back in the Farragut. After finding and helping finish off a Minekaze I turned to find more targets but most of the enemy was moving to the other side of the map. At that point I declared my intention to hunt further south where enemy planes were coming and going. I found the enemy Bogue and started closing with him. I noticed on the minimap that our CV, another Boque with an air superiority package, was sending two squadrons of fighters toward me. This was totally unexpected because I don't see this happen all that much and hardly ever on my behalf. No one asked for it in chat either which made me realize that htm15 (naming, not shaming) was very tactically aware and hungry for air targets. He very effectively kept red's DB and TB squadrons off my back until I could put down the red Bogue. My hat's off to you htm15 and others like you who support surface ship attacks like this. Bravo Zulu! CV's have a very large role to play in this game. This kind of smart play lives up to expectations of how CV's should support the fleet. Many of you CV captains fight really well and are very much appreciated but, IMHO, this singular effort on a DD's behalf was spectacular.
  24. Hi all, Don't know how everyone else feels about this, but since the update that took away 2 carriers per team, at higher tiers ive only found Japanese carriers while playing strike, carriers which then slaughter my planes. Before this update, it was nice to have the 2 carriers work together against the other 2, but now with only one, the US is at a disadvantage with the Japanese always having fighters. Please bring back the 2 carriers, OR in order to not make BB players complain, get rid of Japanese fighters in "strike" loadout/give US fighters in strike loadout
  25. A note that all values are completely stock. Nation Aircraft (Aircraft Carrier, Stock then Top) Tier Speed Hit Points Loadout Average DPS USN Grumman F8F (Midway) X 181 knots 2060 48 80 IJN Mitsubishi A8M (Hakuyruu) X 180 knots 2030 30 87 USN Vought F4U-4 (Saipan, Essex, Midway) IX 178 knots 1910 54 70 IJN Mitsubishi A7M1 (Taihou, Hakuyruu) IX 176 knots 1830 35 73 USN Vought F4U-1 (Lexington, Essex) VIII 169 knots 1700 61 63 IJN Kawanishi N1K5-A (Shoukaku, Taihou) VIII 171 knots 1660 38 70 USN Grumman F6F-5 (Ranger, Lexington) VII 166 knots 1560 72 56 IJN Mitsubishi A6M5c (Hiryuu, Shoukaku) VII 162 knots 1410 46 58 USN Grumman F6F-3 (Independence, Ranger) VI 164 knots 1380 87 50 IJN Mitsubishi A6M2 (Ryuujou, Hiryuu) VI 162 knots 1210 60 44 USN Grumman F4F-4 (Bogue, Independence) V 156 knots 1090 111 43 USN GM FM-2 (Bogue) V 153 knots 1070 114 40 IJN Mitsubishi A5M4 (Hoshou, Zuihou) V 154 knots 990 78 35 USN Grumman F4F-3 (Bogue) IV 157 knots 900 152 33 USN Grumman F3F (Langley) IV 142 knots 820 157 29 IJN Nakajima A4N (Hoshou) III 139 knots 640 148 21 USN Boeing F4B (Langley) III 132 knots 600 227 21 Some initial things that I spot immediately. Tier IX/X USN fighters now have a sizable loadout advantage over their same-tier IJN counterparts. Saipan now has a massive (and quite despicable) advantage over the Tier VII planes. Ranger's fighters now are essentially flat out better than Hiryuu's fighters. Bogue fighters are sickeningly better than Zuihou's fighters. Langley... Langley will just be even more of a disease than before. I suspect that 2/1/2 Midway will benefit nicely from this and be more powerful. The balanced loadouts on other USN CVs will also benefit nicely. The problem, is that this is a massive buff to AS loadouts. Now we will get even more AS spam as USN fighters can lock/attack for much longer than IJN fighters. They will simply outlast IJN fighters and then wipe them out. Langley and Bogue clearly do not need this fighter buff at all. I do not know how I feel about Independence, as it really just has a problem with hanger space, not fighter power.