Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aa'.



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
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

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 70 results

  1. Obviously there’s lots of complaining about CV’s and now submarines. How there’s really no way to defend against them. And yes this is something of a response to LWM's posts on this sub forum. First, we have to accept that anyone who advocates changing CVs and AA to make it feel less like inevitable doom is advocating making CVs weaker. You’re talking about undermining a business model that involves adding new ships to the game. So 99.9% of calls for changes are nonstarters. Any call for gameplay where surface ships can defend as effectively against air strikes as used to be the case when carrier play was more RTS, with limited and vulnerable air groups, will lower the number of carrier players. This is a nonstarter. Insofar as carrier or sub play is ‘boring’ compared to surface ships, it can only be compensated by having these vessels be more powerful. In other words, the defenselessness of surface ships is inevitable if subs and cvs aren’t seen as intrinsically interesting by themselves. But I’m not here to complain about the game or the business model. I’m going to propose a solution that won’t gradually attrit players from the game whilst also allowing WG to keep CVs, subs, and possibly new gimmicks to the game and players having good reasons to use them other than mercilessly bulling those who don’t: My proposal is to make *all* Carrier strike groups and Submarines operate as consumables for surface ships, but unlike regular consumables, these consumables have their own tiers & tech trees with credit and experience requirements to unlock as if they you were going down a tech tree. Carriers and Subs cease to exist as a separate class of warship. In such a system It's possible that some surface ships might go without either sub or air strikes, maybe in exchange for more powerful surface consumables. But I envision in the long run a majority of players in matches will be using 1 or several different type of aircraft. I also envision a degree of variety in consumable selection both between and within ships to allow for customization and differential but overlapping point of focus. This already exists to some extent for the air dropped depth charges and the Dutch cruisers. But I would put back in the ability to manually aim the squads. I’m going to first list the pros (and cons) then describe how I imagine each ‘class’ of consumable working and also how surface ships might counter say consumables. Pros: Because carriers and subs are no longer a dedicated class, there’s no business need to ‘balance’ the whole consumable against surface ships, let alone make the consumables stronger than the ships themselves. You only need to: 1. Make the consumable strong enough to be useful in certain situations 2. Make the consumables balanced against each other. This means that *actually* strong AA ships are no longer an issue. From WG’s perspective this solves the problem of getting people to play carriers and subs, everyone will essentially be playing these to some degree (most likely) much more than they are currently. Sub and Carrier consumables can theoretically be used after the main surface ship has been destroyed, giving players another way to continue participating after the match has ended. Surface ships that are currently lackluster can be buffed with better sub/strike consumables, again, in a way that doesn’t compromise WG’s business model. Corollary to the above; If you’re a low tier in a high tier game, it’s possible to have the imbalance compensated with by the consumables scaling to the tier of the match rather than the tier of the ship. This gives WG a way to incorporate naval aviation for countries that did not have any carriers, since the ’carrier’ aspect is less relevant. (I’ll describe how WG can still use carriers as gameplay elements) Cons: Players who don’t like aircraft or subs in general may dislike feeling obliged to use them to be competitive. One solution is to think about how to balance the existing consumables to allow for a ‘pure surface ship’ that is stronger. (like shorter CD consumables or more charges in exchange for no air wings and such) Potential for excessive micromanagement and multitasking, especially at the very competitive level. Catapult aircraft will need to be rebalanced around this, since my suggested system makes it possible for a surface ship to defend itself with fighters that are pulled from outside the map. Aircraft spotting will likely need to be removed or changed so that destroyer-as-scout is not 100% undermined. Insofar as manual dropping is concerned this system may inadvertently favor battleships and slow ROF ships in general that can multitask by microing their consumables in between salvos. This may lead to a need to return of ‘premium consumables’ Matchmaker will need to account for difference in potential punching power between two ships of the same tier one of which has not upgraded their consumables yet. In my mind only the micromanagement requirement is an unavoidable con to my proposal. How would it work? In theory it could work a number of ways but I’m going to describe how I imagine it. The most important thing is that the consumables approach makes this (or any) balancing feasible. Re-read the first two paragraphs if you have to. Aircraft: > Your surface ship might have 1 or several classes of aircraft, with numerical indicators (A/B) where A is number of aircraft [or squadrons] available to be launched as a squadron and B is the number [of aircraft or squadrons] you have in total reserve. Since these craft can theoretically be launched if your surface ship is destroyed, they need to be finite in number. > Tap the hotkey corresponding to the strike group you want to send out, it will take a few seconds for that group to enter the battle group either launched via carrier or flying into the map if it is a naval aircraft not carrier launched (like a condor). Carrier aircraft might have a perk that makes the deployment period shorter. > Once the air group is in the map it can be moved RTS style on the map or via the minimap, but it can also be moved manually as is done currently. > Aircraft have a certain loiter period, i.e. how long they can remain in the zone before needing to refuel. > Super Optional: Have carriers as entities a few kilometers behind the main battle line from which your team’s carrier aircraft are launched, these don’t move can be targeted and destroyed by surface ships or even enemy strike craft (though the latter is difficult). You’d have to get well past the middle point of the map to even detect the CVs. I wouldn’t countenance CV sniping in this new system except as a way to punish an exceptionally passive enemy, but that does provides a massive incentive in any game mode to push if doing so deprives the enemy of his air consumables. Aircraft, Air Strikes, and AA: Since we’ve changed the incentives around for players and for WG, there’s no cause to either make aircraft trivially useless for the sake of surface ships or to make aircraft unstoppable death dealers. We can finally just focus on creating a dynamic between surface ships and aircraft that is tactical, hopefully fun, and modestly historically realistic. We want the consumables to work well when used well and visa versa. > Surface ship AA health (at least light and med) % is visible to all players by default this is important information because… > Medium and light AA will deal damage to any planes in its radius with no invulnerability periods granted, though damage will scale up and down depending on the type and speed of the aircraft and whether it is maneuvering. As a rule, medium and light AA will be most effective (i.e. higher damage) against torpedo bombers since they fly low and slow, but those also happen to *usually* be the aircraft that can do the most damage to ships, if they survive and lead the enemy ship properly. High health AA is much more of a lifeline for large ships and low health AA much more of a curse. > Heavy AA will be most effective against slower larger aircraft that operate at high altitudes, though heavy AA can also be used to provide cover to allied ships that would normally not be covered by medium AA. > Surface ships damaging enemy vessels superstructures are not simply about farming damage but about trying to get that ship’s passive AA low enough that torpedo bombers and the heavy damage dealers have a reasonable chance to drop before getting shot down. Though some aircraft classes may be specialized for being hard to hit for enemy AA and doing supression of enemy air defenses. > Defensive Fire consumable is replaced with the ability of certain surface ships to manually aim heavy AA flak bursts, rotating the camera around will give the direction of the flak and instead of zooming the aim in and out you raise or lower the fuse time (i.e. the distance from the ship that the flak explodes). It is easier to visualize in 2D, think of a clock with 1 hand that can shrink and grow, the center of the clock is the ship, the time of the clock is the direction the flak is aiming, and the length of the hand is the fuse time. The trick is to get the flak cloud to explode in the same spot and time that the enemy’s planes will be there. This manual flak should be far more effective than passive flak, and the goal is to encourage AA ships to actively try to shoot down squadrons aimed at teammates. I am thinking, depending on the ship, 1-3 shot chances before the ability goes on cooldown. Technically elevation and fuse time would be different things but the aiming will adjust based on what is being targeted so that players do not have to aim in 3 dimensions. > Surface defense against aircraft consists in: Strong passive AA Defensive Fire Evasion for smaller vessels Note “Just dodge” needn’t be a sarcastic jab anymore, since dodging strikes was viable during the pre-CV rework and manually aimed strikes can have their whippy turn times nerfed since, again, aircraft is no longer a class that needs to match or exceed surface ship strength. The ability to call in air wings capable of intercepting strike groups. (See aircraft classes for more details). Certain of these defenses will be more effective against certain airstrikes. > Given how many ways air strikes can be defended against, getting hit multiple times with a dive or torp bombing should be roughly as punishing as getting citadel multiple times. The existing damage levels of CVs have to somewhat account for the fact that strikes are Mostly inevitable Mostly undodgable Mostly infinite None of this will be true anymore, so it’s important to make aircraft deadlier when used correctly. Aircraft Classes: Some mentioned before Torp Bombers: Slower and more vulnerable when doing a drop but drops deal far more damage (on a per torp basis more than what they do now, but less than destroyer torpedoes). A battleship or cruiser with good AA should be capable of shooting down a wing of these guys unless the AA has been sufficiently weakened, so these planes are more meant for finishing off ships that have already had their superstructure farmed. Rocket(armed) Planes: Meant as a way of dealing with strong medium AA, since they are faster than dive/torp bombers and don’t have to come in at a low altitude they take less damage on the approach and can soften up targets. They also can survive more effectively against other fighters in dogfights. Dive Bombers: Dive bombing planes will take less damage from medium/light AA than torpedo bombers but the strikes themselves will not deal as much damage. They are effectively intermediate between the rocket planes and torp bombers Fighters: Fighters not armed with anti-ship weapons will not just spontaneously spawn from other air wings as they do now, instead operating as separate units which can be used to cover airspace. They can operate in one of several niches: Heavy Fighter: Takes a while to arrive but can loiter in an area for a longer period of time, armament is good against slower bulkier craft but might be outmaneuvered by rocket planes, and will generally lose to other fighters in dogfights. Air superiority fighters: Intermediate between interceptors and heavy fighters with respect to dogfighting and loitering. Deals less damage to bombers but takes less damage from other fighters. Interceptors: Meant to fly quickly to an area, loitering only for a brief time, then leave. They can be used to clear away heavy fighters and air superiority fighters, or even bombers if they are well timed. Level Bombers: Lots of options here laying and destroying mines, dropping smokescreens, level bombing – high altitude level bombers are very inaccurate but immune to most short-range AA, but also fewer in number, slower, and more vulnerable to fighters. sub hunting (Replace airdrop depth charges) Submarines: > Subs as consumables is a bit harder than aircraft, but I still think it’s possible. I imagine basic commands like direction and depth settings can be done from the minimap as a surface ship, with the ability to switch to the sub to launch torpedoes. > In terms of a role for submarines, the one thing that WoWs doesn’t really have is a class that can punish camping. So having a consumable that is spawned in from the flanks of a fight, surfaces, launches torpedoes and dives to reload can fill that niche.
  2. Look not getting to interact with CVs while they can damage surface ships was bad enough. Now the Subs have more health then DDs, better concealment then CVs and they can ping as quickly as 6 seconds. Something has to be done so surface ships can interact with sub more. 1. Double or triple the range of of anti sub planes. 2. Give forward firing depth charges sight. 3. Double the amount of depth charges per depth charges. 4. Double the size of depth charge coverage area 5. Allow Hydro acoustic search to detect subs at any depth inside the ship detection range 6. Limit how quickly subs can ping or give all surface ships more or unlimited damage control party 7. Make damage control party reload quicker We need more ways to interact with subs. For CVs make AA better and make CVs lose health for every plane that gets shot down.
  3. A while ago, just over a year in fact, I posted a proposal for a line of Royal Navy AA cruisers. These ships would have been dedicated AA ships that used smoke and defensive AA fire against aircraft, and would have had low caliber guns for their tier as a offset. And then, WG put that line into the game. Sure, they made it pan Asian and only used one of the ships I wanted, but the flavor was implemented. This leaves me with a lot of ships that I want in the game not in the game and my proposed playstyle already issued. So, its back to the drawing board. And after some doodling, I return with a whole new playstyle and a revamped lineup of RN AA Crusiers and attached premiums. In terms of the historical reasoning for this line, during the 2nd world war, Britain was one of two countries to go all in with the idea of creating surface ships with a main role of screening against air attacks, and the first one to come up with the idea. In all, a total of 25 ships were built or refit as AA cruisers for the Royal Navy, more than any other navy in the world. These ships would serve from the beginning of the war, taking part in numerous surfaces actions, sometimes heavily outgunned, but punching far above their weight. At the end of the European theater, the Kriegsmarine would formally surrender on one of these vessels. Gameplay wise, there is a slight call for these ships to be added, with the feeling of CV’s being broken, perhaps a measure to help correct that. Really this is like a band-aid on a bullet wound, but a series of ships with noticeable AA advantages over their peers would be nice. Apart from that, the gameplay need is simple, new content to keep people engaged. So before we get into the individual ships of the line, we need to get into the characteristics of the line. The Feel of the Line. There are a lot of characteristics to this line that will be dictated by the characteristics of the historical ships in the line, and from here the remaining characteristics are added to flow with that established flavor. 1. These ships are small in comparison to other ships of their class and tier, this comes with the advantages of having best or near best in tier concealment, as well as best in tier or near best in tier agility, but at the detriment of having worst in tier or near worst in tier HP pools. 2. These ships have uninspiring armor, worse even than the British light cruisers. 3. The ships main battery are dual purpose mounts, and there is no secondary battery. They will have shorter range and are smaller in caliber than nearly every other cruiser gun in game. 4. The ships long range AA is going to be best in tier. This is where most of the AA firepower comes from. The flak will usually have the longest range in tier, and the flak bursts will typically be the highest damage in tier. 5. These ships are not particularly fast, in fact in many cases they are quite slow for a cruiser. So those are the historical constraints, and they already take care of the guts of the lines character. Now what needs to be filled in are any specific traits from the box of gimmicks to flesh things out. As far as this line specific traits, I have in mind a few. These traits being. 1. The ships have the RN CL acceleration, like the recently added Dido. This and their already short turning radius's and pretty good rudder shift times make them very easy to chuck around and dodge incoming fire. They will need this ability. 2. This is the big one. With alternate fire modes being added, pressing the 3 key gives you a new type of shell attached to a new type of firing mode. This shell will be called the VT shell. In this case, VT stands for variable timed fuse shell and this shell, and the combined firing mode will be what makes these ships exceptional AA ships. How it works will be as follows. When you select the 3 key your ships main guns will reload to the VT shells and the camera will enter a special ‘director view’ that is similar to the zoomed in gun view from below. When in this mode, the ship does not create its own flak bursts, these are now replicated by the VT shells. In the director view, the player aims the main battery guns at the enemy (the main battery guns still use the same traverse, elevation, and reload rates as they do against surface ships) gets the lead on the target correct, fires, and waits for the shells to cross the planes trajectory. Once the shells are as near to the enemy planes as possible, they explode as a flak burst. If they miss the planes and never get within burst range, they explode at the max range of the outer AA aura. Standard flight times and arcs are included, and give the aircraft a visual indicator that they are under fire before the shells hit. Further, the amount of fire that the ship can put up against the planes now depends on the angle of the ship to the planes, for example with Dido only 3 turrets contribute against aircraft dead ahead, 4 against aircraft between 20 ish and 50 ish degrees off the bow, the full battery between 50 and 140 degrees, and only 2 between 140 ish and 180 degrees off the bow. This means that the AA ship must maneuver to ensure they can put the maximum firepower up against aircraft, and cannot engage surface ships at the same time. What they get in return is the ability to actually have the flak clouds work to their full potential. If you have ever been in a training room or Co-op game and engaged a squadron you probably noticed that they die pretty quickly because they just fly right into the flak. With this manual fire mode, the possibility of hitting the enemy player with accurate flak and destroying his squadron outright is on the menu. It does cost more player involvement, but the capability against aircraft increased. Now, people may be saying that that’s all well and good against aircraft, but what about all those non-cv matches? Well, the VT-shells will have a secondary surface capability as well. Against surface targets, the VT shells do the following. They have reduced penetration by 25% threshold (Ex, 5.25 shells penetrate 22mm of armor natively, with the VT Fused shells, this is 16mm of armor. if they have IFHE, this gets bumped up to 20mm) . They have reduced damage They have a reduced fire chance They do increased module damage They have a larger HE damage radius They airburst as near the target as possible While it may look like this is not a good trade the airbursting will allow more shells to do damage to the target than a typical HE salvo where a few shells miss due to the RNG. Also the increased module damage can strip the target of AA, torpedoes, guns, and mobility quicker than even regular HE salvos. These factors should make the VT shells deadly for any destroyers or light cruisers that get too close. Finally, there is the question of what consumables would be used. I propose that these ships should have Defensive AA, Repair party, and Radar from T8 and up. So there we go. In general, this is how the line would feel. Now to the individual ships. Ships of the Line Tier 3: The C class AA Cruiser. This is the AA ship that started it all. With the ships on hand and obsolete, the Royal Navy decided to do a refit after the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935. The Italians had a large air force at this point, and the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean would have to deal with them. Thus, there were 3 series of refits to the C class cruisers to make them AA ships. The first two converted, Coventry and Curlew, had 10 single 4 inch cannons and 2 octuple pompoms. However, the standard outfit was 8 of the dual 4-inch mounts that are ubiquitous on British cruisers, as well as a single quad pom-pom and a pair of quad Vickers 50 cals. This would be the A hull for this ship. The B-hull would be the refit applied to HMS Colombo, being 3 of the dual 4-inch mounts, 2 twin 40mm bofors, and 14 20mm cannons arranged in 6 dual mounts and a pair of singles. Tier 4: The Proposed D class Cruiser AA refit. As a part of the AA cruiser refits, it was decided that the similarly obsolete but larger D class cruisers would get a slightly larger and better laid out version of the C class AA refit. These would be armed with 4 twin 4.5 in turrets (similar to the secondary battery of Ark Royal), a quadruple pom pom, and the 2 quad 50 cal Vickers guns. as below, but lose the aft pom pom and replace the 20mm cannons at the stern, behind x turret, and on the wing deck with a smaller amount of quad vickers guns, i'm thinking 4. B hull is as below, exactly as is. This means 3 quad pom poms, and 9 single 20mm mounts. This can be adjusted, but shows the general look and changes between hulls. Tier 5: Charybdis HMS Chardybis was a Dido class cruiser but modified to meet the urgent requirements of war. She and Scylla were modified from the standard dido design to use 4.5-inch turrets originally made for the proposed D class AA cruisers, just because they were on hand and the ships could be completed much faster than waiting for the proper 5.25-inch mounts. Charybdis would have the 4 twin 4.5 inch cannons, as well as 2 triple torpedo tubes, 2 quad pom-poms, and 8 20mm. b hull would add 10 more 20mms. Tier 6: Cleopatra… or Argonaut… or Euraylus With the lead ship of the class in game as a premium, I have decided to add in one of the more famous Didos as the in branch representation of the class. The reason I’m picking between these three ships is due to the differences in the A and B hulls. A hull will have mediocre short range AA but the full 5 turrets of 5.25 inch, while B hull will have the refits where they were reduced to 4 main turrets, but with much improved mid and short range AA. As a note, these ships would have a reload of 6 seconds on their guns, basically having the firepower of Didos original stats, but without the smoke screen that justified their nerfing. Tier 7: Diadem One of the improved Didos (Bellona subclass), this ship is a Dido with better concealment, better torpedoes, improved 5 second reload, faster turret traverse by a factor of 2, and much improved mid and short range AA. The B hull will be Diadem fitted out as she was just before being transferred to Pakistan as PNS Babur, with a unified mid-range AA armament of 40mm bofors. Tier 8, cruiser proposal M1 One of the proposed 1943 light cruisers. Armed with 3 twin 5.25in turrets with improved gun and mounting, 6 dual 40mm mounts, 8 dual 20mm, and 2 quad torpedo launchers. Envision a chunky Lightning. The initial mount would have a reload of 5 seconds, but B hull gets access to the proposed Mk IV mounting with autoloader, and has a 3 second reload. Also, the ship is pretty darn slow at 29 knots initially, only going up to 30 with the improved horsepower. There are literally no pictures of this thing. Tier 9: Cruiser proposal N2: The other proposed 1943 light cruiser. Armed with 4 dual 5.25 in turret like m1, with 8 dual 40mm mounts and 12 dual 20mm mounts, as well as 2 quad torpedo launchers. Initially this ship also goes 29 knots, and has the 5 second reload turrets. Fully upgraded N2 would have 2 quad launchers per side, be capable of 30 knots, and have the 3 second reload MK IV mounts. Tier 10: Her Majesty's Ship The Future: This is the ship proposed by @Lord_Magus and its pretty crazy. This is Sketch A of the 1960 cruiser, named so because the admiralty was convinced that in 1948 when they drew it that it would not be possible to make until 1960. It uses 4 of the very experimental N1 5"/70 cannons, with a proposed shell weight of 70 pounds, muzzle velocity of 1036 m/s, and maximum fire rate of 66 rounds per minute! This design has some pros, its a dual purpose gun ship, that would be new, would be a AA cruiser, and with a crazy low profile would fit in with the line to a good degree. Also, the 2 quad torp launchers per side scale well with the launchers on N2 . The cons are the guns. At 127mm they would not benefit the same way that the 5.25 inch guns would from IFHE and thus the commander skills for this ship would be different from the rest of the line. More importantly, its crazy guns would be weird to balance. The High muzzle velocity would change the playstyle, not to mention the firing rate would need to be nerfed and the shell characteristics are wacky (the AP shell is basically SAP as specified, penetrating 1 inch of armor at "minimum striking velocity's and angles of 50 degrees" and having a bursting charge of 5 lbs, compared to the 6 inch cannons 3.75) this ship would be interesting to implement. Premium ships! Tier 5, HMS Delhi: Imagine a Fletcher, but with worse concealment, no torpedoes, slower, and with a citadel. Tier 6: Sirius A premium for the RN Cl line. It being a Dido class I put it here, but gameplay wise it would be 100% RN CL. Originally I had proposed this at Tier 7, but with Dido at tier 6 Sirius should be down tiered as such. Tier 6: Scylla Being a Dido class I put this here, but it has little to do gameplaywise with the RN AA Cl’s. I have a full writeup here. Premium at tier 8: K25F A paper design during the process of designing Fiji, has 8 of the twin 5.25in cannons. Would be a higher tier captain trainer. Premium at tier 8: RN 1951 emergency cruiser A proposed wide hulled Bellona with 4 of the 4.5 inch cannons of Daring and modernized FCS. I have a writeup of it here.
  4. With support carriers being announced and the general displeasure the playerbase feels about being picked on by CVs I got an idea for a change. While more conceptual than ironed out, I think it has some potential. That is - a mechanic to discourage repeatedly striking the same target. I’d call it “Alertness”. For every second you have a priority sector active against planes your AA gets a cumulative strength increase. Similar to the special battle commands the Hannover and Satsuma have. If you AA hasn’t been active and “priority sectored” in a few minutes the bonus will start to tick down. Ships with defensive AA can give this an instant boost to 1/3rd its max upon activation. Maybe a little overkill, but if you have been struck by a CV 3 times in a row, and had your priority sector active against the planes all 3 times you unlock aa special battle command to instantly shoot down several planes. Unsure if it would be fair or not to let the CV see how much this “Alertness” bar is progressed on enemy ships or not. It could be similar to how you can see battery levels for submarines. If it was not visible and there are multiple carriers it would be a bit unfair for the other CV to be punished for the actions of their ally. You would also be able to slightly build your “Alertness” by priority sectoring Fighters/Air Strikes/ Depth Charge Bombers. A real alert captain could keep this bonus active without even having the CV strike them. This could also be an issue in smaller battles (like ranked), eg. 5v5 or 7v7. But I would argue that carriers shouldn’t be allowed in those smaller battle types to begin with. I also understand that this is a net nerf to carriers, but I think it is warranted. CVs should be considered a high-skill level class. A skilled CV player would be able to mitigate this change. And, attentive captains on the receiving end of attacks would appreciate a tool to defend themselves. A net win in my books.
  5. Ishizuchi

    AA Spec Groningen

    Should I spec her for firepower or go with AA? I've heard people say that her AA is just fine and I should just get the normal gunboat dd build on her.
  6. As per title, Iowa is missing a substantial amount of 20mm Oerlikons in World of Warships. This is likely due to Iowa having a very, very old model that hasn't changed since the early days of World of Warships. Interestingly, Missouri possesses many of the 20mm fixtures Iowa is missing, save for some minor differences that are most notable around the midsection of the ship, where the two sisters diverge in their AA scheme and design. In total, Iowa appears to be missing a grand total of 20 20mm Oerlikon mounts.
  7. 6fingeredman

    Secondaries and AA

    Perhaps a bias opinion, but I think they should leave secondaries and aa unbreakable. I have been loving my secondary ships again and I'm going to miss them all over again. If I may provide some rational (by no means exhaustive just my experience): The best way to play secondary ships is to play mid to long range at the beginning of a match or close to an island. Once the dust starts to settle you can strategically push in and send your secondaries ablaze. Having the secondaries unbreakable rewarded this. You didn't have to worry about them breaking at the beginning of the match and knew they'd be ready later. Just sucks knowing secondary builds are going to be weaker again. I know it's not going to happen but I felt that I should at least say my peace...
  8. NefariousRaven

    MFW People say AA is useless

    Poor Midway, if you see this, I'm sorry for what I did to you. She unfortunately ended up on my side of the map and I managed to take out their Groz early and park right in the CV's lane of planes so it didn't particularly matter where they were sent, they would die as they went out unless he went very far out of hers way with them. My captain isn't even high enough in level to have any AA talents, this is just raw Halland destruction unbuffed. If I had AA talents it would've been even more disgusting. Also for reference, the CV attempted to locate me to strike me--because I've been assured that it's easy for CVs to hit if they want by so many on these forums--and she didn't land a single salvo on me because his planes died before a single run could be attempted. Well, except once when I was lazy and didn't turn off AA and she managed to get one singular dive bomb run that I dodged anyways. But half the planes dies passing over me not knowing where I was and then the rest died before they could turn around. Where's Elzalor to tell me AA is useless ;P
  9. Count_of_Kaloki

    Subs need Guns!

    Submarines have there AA and secondary guns turned off because they do not a have a High enough caliber. But thats not true they have the same caliber of destroyers of there tier and its better to do some damage then no damage. Carrier will be another major threat to surfaced submarines and most submarines have 2 AA guns, they are not ment to shoot down the hole squad they are met to do some damage, to deter the plane from flying over the submarines. If you agree leave a message Thanks you!
  10. RedBellyBlackSnake

    AA instantaneous damage

    I usually wait for planes to come into range of my AA before I turn on priority sector. This applied instantaneous damage to the planes. My question: "Has instantaneous damage been taken away?" I don't see it in the AA stats of ships anymore. I would like to know if it still works, because it determines how I will use my AA. If there is no instantaneous damage anymore, then I will probably turn on my priority sector a little earlier.
  11. This AA Magic Flak Cloud that disintegrates everything with the push of a button to bring AA to full alert IS NOT REALISTIC. Space Invaders from the 1980's used Smart Bombs to obliterate everything on the screen. Is this what WOWS wants? They could have saved a ton of money by purchasing the Space Invaders code and modifying that. Even when I am playing Cruisers and I bring my AA to Full Alert status, I cannot believe what I see when with just the push of that button, everything in the sky within my defense radius is obliterated. And this is without having defined an AA defense sector. I don't use it. So how about it WOWS. Lets get rid of the Magic All Disintegrating Flak Clouds. Why do I call them Magic? Because they float in the sky waiting for planes to fly through them before they burst. TOTALLY UNREALISTIC FOLKS. You want these "special" features for the "special" loaded diaper set who complains incessantly anytime they see a Carrier? Then develop a Kiddy Court where they can play their rubber ducks in the tub and complain without end about how life ain't fair.
  12. dad003

    WHAT is AA ?

    What is AA ? apparantly it doesnt work they say ! MIne work so well ! https://youtu.be/GL47HtrmxUE
  13. My Ranger's F4F found out the hard way. And flak, on a dd?
  14. 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.
  15. Being a big fan of Jingles......
  16. 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?!
  17. I had this happen yesterday, and I've watched this replay a couple times to determine what (if anything) I could have done differently here to mitigate the ultimate outcome. Loaded into a match with Hawkins as I decided to earnestly start the British CA line grind. I begin heading toward A cap, intending to support pink Farragut, stay on the flank and deter any push outside of the islands and target any enemy DD that heads that way to start the match. Enemy Weser spots me 45 seconds into the match, flying in with AP Rockets. I turn toward the rockets to ensure he doesn't have the ability to citadel me broadside and engage AA priority sector. I see my Priority Target indicator light up and climb quickly; I immediately hit the brakes to juke incoming BB fire, which I know is coming. First wave of rockets hit but do minimal damage; first round of salvos from enemy BBs arrive and miss due to throttle cut. Weser approaches from the west for AP rocket pass number two, as I've successfully shot down one plane. I engage AA priority sector again and head toward smoke the Farragut has laid for me; however, in doing so not only would I provide too much broadside to Weser's AP rockets, but I narrowly avoid a BB salvo aimed squarely at where I would have entered the smoke had I continued in that direction. AP Rockets hit the stern and rear of the ship for minimal damage. Less than three seconds later (which means the salvo had likely already been fired at that distance), AP salvo from Giulio Cesare finishes me in a Dev Strike before any enemies are even within striking distance of my ship. I finish the match with a total of 4 planes shot down, 0 total XP, and reported for being AFK. I'm genuinely curious – barring not choosing to play this particular ship, and staying where I spawned or attempting to hug the Texas who decided to head east (and still may not have stopped the rocket attack), what actual possible counterplay was there in this situation? I'm always attempting to improve my gameplay, I've watched the clip several times and I just can't think of anything different that could have been done here to prevent what happened, because even if I had stayed in spawn many of the enemy BBs had the range to strike me when spotted at that distance. What do you think?
  18. Double CV games are completely unbalanced...When will this STOP?!? There is no counter when both CVs focus 1 ship and you have clueless teammate CVs that will not provide fighter support. A supposed AA strong ship cannot punish the planes when the enemy CV player can keep rotating squadron types and burn and flood the focused ship in a couple minutes. This is with other ships providing overlapping AA support. Any trash player that learns the basic game play mechanics can suffer no consequences by throwing their planes away. I'm so sick of this like many other players are. So tell us...when will it stop???
  19. Aircraft carriers are extremely underpowered. There aircraft are weak in both armor/HP, accuracy, and armament. The armor of aircraft is non-existent. There health pool is very low as well. Ship AA is easily able to destroy a squadron of fighters before a single attack is launched when multiple ships are together and only one attack can be launched when a ship is by itself. Destroyers are the only reliable target for carriers as they have a low AA defense, but are nimble enough for 90-100% of the attack to miss, and the 10% of the time that if does hit, typical damage is around 700 for rocket attack planes, 900 for dive bombers, and 1000 tor torpedo planes. For armament I will start with Torpedo planes. Why are carriers the only class of ship with an arming distance on there torpedoes, Destroyers can launch torpedoes onto the deck of another ship and kill them instantly, while CV torpedoes deal 1,400 damage and maybe a flood on a cruiser. The same torpedo on a destroyer of the same tier does 11,733 damage, while the carrier torpedoes do 5,567 (Ranger compared to Farragut) in fact the tier 2 destroyer the Sampson's torpedoes do 5,900 damage stock. The dive bombers do the most damage with 9,200, but there accuracy leaves mush to be desired. From a fully "zoomed in" attack from bow to stern, 2/3 bombs will hit. the 3rd bomb is teleported outside the aiming circle and is dropped in the water, regardless of the circle being inside the ship. rocket attack planes are fast, low HP and are very inaccurate. This is realistic as they are dumb fire rockets. and I have only one complaint at that is the arming timer, why must I wait to fire my rockets? I wish Wargaming would buff carriers and/or nerf AA.
  20. The title gets across the gist of it. As I'd imagine a lot of you know, the two most widely used and effective AA guns mounted on American ships during WWII were the 40mm Bofors and the 20mm Oerlikon. I'd also imagine that a lot of you know that those were Swedish and Swiss guns, respectively, purchased by and built for the U.S. military. The question I have is this: Why go to foreign designs? I'd imagine that it wasn't cheap for the States to get their hands on these designs, and that money possibly could have been used to improve the U.S.' existing AA designs or to come up with new ones entirely. Likewise, selling weapons to the Allies must have presented a terrible risk to neutral Sweden and Switzerland. By 1941 both countries were completely surrounded by Axis territory (since Finland joined the Axis when Operation Barbarossa began), and the pretense of stopping the selling of weapons to their enemies would have presented a golden opportunity for Germany and Italy to invade. However, since I know I'm not even close to the most well-versed history buff here, I now turn over the mic to those among you who are: Why did the United States purchase Swiss and Swedish AA guns and their designs as opposed to trying to improve on/create their own? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my question. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  21. I am dead serious about tier 3 and 4 ships needing higher AA DPS values, somewhere on par or just short of the tier 5 ships. ( ~10% less then tier 5 per tier ) Here are: "Baby seal pelts for the spreadsheet God" if that is not sufficient i will have to "procure" some more. P.S. Yes you are seeing it correctly 187k~192k damage with torps only, while losing 15 planes total.
  22. Howdy sailors, first off hope your all doing good and are healthy! Now, I'd like to suggest a buff to the AA guns Mod 1! Reason being is because 1: In its current state it literally doesn't do anything to inspire players to pick it over other mods in its catagory. and 2: even with sector aa activated, it does little to help protect against air attacks to begin with, thus making this buff all but useless which is why I'd like to ask WG to please consider either giving it a +10% damage per second buff or a range boost buff of .5 Km. or maybe even both. What's your thoughts on the matter though, what buffs would you like to have on this equipment? or do you think it's fine as is? please comment below! until next time, I'll C'ya on the Seas! P.S. please check out my USS California Event Thread Suggestion and maybe leave a comment on there as well!
  23. Okay, I've really hit my breaking point on people using AA ratings and bringing them up. If you look at the AA ratings, it's such an obscure number with so little meaning you think your AA is one thing yet you slaughter or get slaughtered by planes. So I'm going to give an overly simplified way to get an idea what your going to do to a CV's planes but it will require math on your end (unless I figure out an easy way to do it on a google sheet and/or people are willing to donate cash for the amount of time it will take me to run through every ship, CV, possible setup) Simply put what truly determines if your AA is good is how long planes are in your AA, and how much damage is done every second. It's why Kremlin at tier 10 outperforms Montana at downing planes, and Yamato seems pathetic. longer range is better and obviously, more damage is better, but truth be told you want both. Also, these are a general guideline - not insanely specific numbers (some planes will be faster, slower, more HP, less HP). Tier Speed (km/s) HP per plane 10 .5 km every second 2000 8 .45 km every second 1800 6 .4 km every second 15-1600 4 .35 km every second ~1400 So lets take Benson, tier 8 USN DD and put it against a tier 6 CV. You have the B hull, no flags/skills/modz. Long range is 5.8 km at 77 damage every second, short range is 2 km at 60 damage every second. Tier 6 average is .4 km and 1500 HP on the low end. Your long range AA will fire at them on the way in 14 times at 77 damage, and short range 5 times at 60 - roughly 1378 on the first attack run, just short of knocking a plane down. The C hull while taking away a little from long range and a lot from short range adds 49 DP at 3.5 km, meaning 8 seconds of damage - the overall change being an increase to 1525 - a better chance you down a plane in the first pass. Obviously DFAA (50% more damage) and sectors (varies) increase or decrease these numbers, but that is your rough baseline of what your ship can do against a CV of the tier without you doing anything. For any who want to do all the math for the most specific numbers - aircraft damage = AA Range/([plane speed in knots*2.6854]*1000) * DPS. The first part gets you time in AA, and then you multiply it by DPS number for that range. It's also a good idea of how long till a CV can hit you again - and to track them down by range. The number in the chart are if a CV can maintain maximum speed on planes (usually done on attack runs) - so generally, if a CV is hitting you every 90 seconds and is tier 6 - odds are he's roughly 6-9 grid squares away in the direction of the planes. Basically while there is some map size overlap - takes roughly 10 seconds for plane at a tier to cover a grid square in their tier range at top speed. That little chart is easier, and while not perfect - will give you a far better idea just what your AA can do against a CV than the nonsense port rating ever will.
  24. After a brief search seems the strongest AA at tier 4 is on Giussano, maxing her AA is enough to hurt t4 squadrons badly?
  25. G'day all, Just curious as I have not heard or read about this before...despite archive searching and talking to mates. I assume it is uncommon to shoot down Allied planes though I am curious if it had happened to anyone else or it's more common than expected ? I apologies in advance if this has been covered before. Happy Hunting! o7 cheers Mort
×