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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • 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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 43 results

  1. So with flak more or less being relagated to long range so carriers can focus on aiming at mid and short range, that seems to leave DDs in a tight spot since you leave AA off until the planes would detect you. And with most DDs, this is less than the range of your flak (assuming you're in a DD that even has long range AA). Am I missing something here?
  2. Capt_Ahab1776

    AA for Dreadnought

    Hello, I had just read a thread about the worst premiums. I read some one had mentioned the Dreadnought as one of the worst. I have the Dreadnought and, very happy to have her, (Thank you WG). I have no plans on selling her as she is very historic and I do have a little bit of a collector bug now and again. I reserve her for exclusively Co-op matches when I do play her. Now with the reintroduction of bot CV's into Co-op. Is there a chance she could be armed with her regular tech tree tier contemporary, Bellerophon's AA? Currently she has none so it is WASD to the rescue. Even with a addition of the Bellerophon's AA it would by no means make her OP. Maybe just make her more viable and a possible Random mode ship?
  3. Right. So I've been away from this game for about a week, first for a largely disappointing trip to Nebraska to see the spawn of my oldest sister (not happy with those kids right now, a pair of right jerks they've turned into), and second because I went back to finish a playthrough of Mass Effect 2 that I'd let collect dust for too long. I've finally gotten around to trying to get back into the swing of things (not that anything's changed in the time I've been gone, just trying to get my 'captain's instinct' back), and I take Musashi out in co-op to help grind out some daily crates and try to get my aim back. Lo and behold, a wild pair of bot Lexingtons appear (one on my incomplete team, and it's twin for the reds). Now I don't expect good play out of bot CVs, but even they should be a reasonable threat to a weak AA ship like Musashi. Instead, I get a nice lovely reminder of how 'balanced' AA still is. I know more changes are on the way, but when an IFHE secondary build Musashi with about 12 triple 25's and a grand total of 6 twin 5 inchers for an AA loadout can single-handedly ruin a Lexington's day (even a poorly played one), something is off to a point that it should never have gotten to. The replay itself can be found at https://replayswows.com/replay/59173#stats.
  4. I made a few tests on the PT server showing the new Anti-Aircraft changes coming for anti aircraft in update 0.8.7. I think the ship's GUI needs more work in identifying when the sector control is working for the AA. You will need to time when to use the sector control and the DFAA now. I hope the video informs what is coming for World of Warships The AA in WoWS feels like it use to pre-CV rework. The AA feels more useful than a noise maker. What do you guys think of the changes?
  5. Basically, it's been a little while since I've played the game and about the same length of time since I cared about what was going on here. The last time I did, the big topic of conversation was that AA had been significantly buffed to the point that CVs were completely useless; Their planes would get shredded like a brick of cheese put to a grader. The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about playing a few matches in the near future and I've generally had fun with the CVs I've bought since the rework went live. I've got a Ranger, a Furious, an Enterprise, and a Zeppelin and I enjoy playing all of them on occasion. However, I may not come back if these ships are in such a position that they can't be competitive and get good damage numbers. As such, I pose to all of you the question in the title. Thank you in advance for whatever helpful answers I may get.
  6. MakersMike

    Air defense question

    I'm pretty new, and I assumed something about planes attacking but now I'm not sure. When planes are attacking my ship, I notice that little airplane figure that I can move around with my mouse. I'm color blind, but I think it's orange. Am I supposed to aim that towards the attacking planes for better chance at shooting them down or what is that for? And is there a button I should push while aiming it or just point it towards the plane? Thanks
  7. I know that "Short range" AA also has an "accuracy" stat but I also know that Flamu is never wrong so I don't know what to think anymore... Somebody in the comments wrote this: ...what development blog?
  8. Just wondering if anyone has heard if there will be a free respec coming up? With upcoming changes to IFHE and the major change to the AA mechanic both being pretty drastic people might have a lot of 3 and 4 point skills that may not feel so valuable any longer. I try to keep up with the announcements but seems like things can show up in 5 differen places so hopefully I just missed it.
  9. Esta prueba de la versión no me deja conforme al jugar con los Portaviones, la cantidad de daño parte de las defensas Anti-Aéreas es excesivo, Pregunta Por que Estandarizar el daño anti-Aéreo en todos los barcos? La quejas antes del Rework a los Portaviones era la misma daño excesivo de las AA. Bueno si van a estandarizar el daño AA por que mejor reintegrar el ataque conjunto de los escuadrones aéreos. El daño AA va de 2k o hasta el derribo completo del escuadrón aéreo
  10. Been running the Kidd recently to be support for my friend who's learning the ropes on Enterprise. The DFAA is crazy good on that thing. I've wiped full Lexington squads from the air in seconds. Never really been able to do well with it before, but now I seem to be finding a niche for it. For anyone doubting it's AA effectiveness, don't worry, she's still an annoying little boat to deal with.
  11. Goal of the proposed change: Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations. Reason for the proposed change: Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Proposed change: Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels. Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS). The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. Here are two examples of how this works out: For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP. A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56. It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in another topic.
  12. WanderingGhost

    I promised you a text wall

    As the title says - a text wall follows so the crowd that leaves snooze emotes because TL;DR - leave now unless your WG staff. I downloaded and played 8.5 today, and as I said in the other thread with my preliminary thoughts on what I was seeing from patch notes, WG Staff, and player feedback if it wasn't good or at least not terrible I'd be writing a wall. Well, here comes the wall. As it was, the entire AA system was bad, and in need of work - you have made it even worse. A common statement, by your staffers, is that it is more punishing "for those that loiter in AA, and who aren't dodging". Your team has actively hindered the ability of planes to dodge in attack runs even if we don't care about dialing our aim in. The moment you release ordnance your group gets stuck flying straight to be shot at and the other group you have no control as AA shreds them trying to return to the carrier because of the escape altitude changes. And per again, a staffers statement "it wasn't fair to see a CV have all it's planes return as a surface ship" - It was equally unfair when as a CV we see no planes return even after dropping all our ordnance - because after we lost control of our planes they were obliterated. And it's even worse now with this new system. And what is actually worst about this system - it's not like it gave everything OP AA. No - the DD's are still easy as hell to pick on and other typically weak AA ships, same with under tier - but clearly Worcester decloaking as it's AA guns open fire wasn't OP enough, you had to make it even more lethal. It was mentioned it was like AA "was focusing on a target" - yeah, it feels like the same nonsense that manual AA was under RTS - pathetic on anything not already sporting good long range AA, but OP on anything with good or OP long range AA - OP or straight up brokenly OP. And I'm sorry if this seems to veer at times to "less or not constructive" - but I'm seeing the same mistakes and processes that made RTS a problem being repeated. I'm seeing the same mistakes and blunders. I'm seeing things, that we were told this rework was being shoved down our throats for if we wanted it or not was going to remove or lessen, added back in. That this would be easier to balance for your team - and yet here we are, 5 months in, going in to month 6, of the live release, let alone the other 3-4 from the Beta period, no closer to anything resembling FAIR balance and CV play on the decline AGAIN. Instead of seeing a bunch of planes drop and going "well I must have been hit by flak" - no I'm now seeing that it really was auto cannons ripping my planes apart as I watch the health bars vanish. It's not fair that surface vessels are either launching nerf darts or using freaking PHALANX point defense systems. At this point, the entire rework feels like nothing but half baked, half tested, half implemented ideas. I feel like there is no actual plan in regards to CV's other than churn more out as premiums that shouldn't be (Ark Royal) when the system is still incomplete and in need of massive work and balance but adding yet another x factor (again, Ark Royal) when there should be ZERO new carriers testing till the damned ones we have are balanced. There are a ton of factors to balancing CV's that need to be addressed so for any reading - I am specifically going to focus at the moment on AA and plane losses/replenishment much as damage and a ton of other crap needs work too that I've gone over in other places. The one thing that is not fully related, is that odd tiers need to return for CV's - because there needs to be a smoother progression and adaption for both CV and Non CV players through tiers. 1. AA and planes need a flat rate "average" - What this means, is that regardless of if it's an 'imaginary number' or actually applies to a plane (likely UK or Germany if not one of the other 3 potential national lines) there is a middle road of DPS and Plane HP, lets say 2000 and 10000 respectively, that is considered the 'average' and for "flavour", prefereably based on history, DPS and Plane HP are +/- to that by a maximum of lets say 10%. So IJN and USN being the two extremes the difference in DPS is 1800 vs 2200 and plane HP 9000 vs 11000. That said though, IJN planes would have better agility to dodge Flak, USN have the extra added HP because not as agile, and kinda need it. But this means your average ship, barring ones that actually have next to nothing on AA and are usually premiums, while having weaker or stronger AA, is not as wild and all over the place. 2. Scaling of HP and DPS - tying in to point one - these two things need to scale through tiers and why I have been saying for years now that tiers 4-7 at minimum need their late war outfits of AA, or have some created where none existed. At least to make the numbers make more sense on why it's AA is so close to the next tier up. Which with that said - The worst AA and plane HP of a tier should be no lower than the average of the previous tier, and the best of each should be no higher than the average of the next tier up. So as an example, Lexington vs lets say Amagi is worst AA. Lexintons planes, at most, have HP on par with a typical tier 9 carrier while at worst, Amagi has AA comparable to an average tier 7. Again, this is best and worst case. And even then the gap between tiers on both AA and plane HP should not be that great. Again, the example of tier 8 being 2000 and 10000, 9 and 10 should be lets say 2100/11000 and 2200/12000 while 7-4 is 1900/9000, 1800/8000, 1700/7000, 1600/6000. Those are pure example numbers, I have not mathed them out or the like. 3. Simplicity and Flak - I'm combining these two because they go a bit hand in hand. What do I mean by "Simplicity" - I mean that the system should be frakkin' easy to understand with no 'mystery' numbers. Case in point, the need of someone like LWM or others to explain 'Hit Probability' is actually some random modifier that adjust the tick rate of damage and having things like aircraft armor and all. Your new 'ring' system, while annoying in it's limiting nature, can at least be worked around. Let's take the 'average' USN ship armed with 40 mm bofors, 20 mm Oerlikons, and 5"/38's. The ring of 5/38's should likely have the lowest DPS as the typical RoF was about a shell every 4-5 seconds - and the AA should match this. When they hit the next ring, the 40 mm guns open up, on top of flak, so, whatever DPS is assigned to the 40 mm guns takes over, while flak remains the same (as 40 MM guns DON'T USE FLAK ROUNDS) so in essence 'both' sets are firing. In theory as long as you can seperate when flak bursts occur from constant damage, you could even add the constant DPS of the Flak guns in if they are even given any. The 40 mm bofors has a RoF of 120 RPM for the majority of guns in game - 2 rounds every second. So, every 1 second, damage should be inflicted - unless you want to add a legit chance that the plane 'resists' (avoids) the damage. IE the 'hit probability' if it stayed saying say 90% means there's a 10% chance the DPS doesn't happen, or that in theory if the DPS is 200 per second in that AA, and a plane is there for 10 seconds he only takes 1800 damage not 2000 most likely. Think of it as 'fire chance for planes' but I digress. 20 mm L70's average 4-5 RPS, so damage per gun at the shortest range there should be the equivalent of (4[5]x 20 mm rounds + 2x 40 mm rounds)*number of barrels = DPS per one second tick. or a fixed number subtracting average from Flak's constant. To which getting in to Flak as I say above it should be based around the actual fire rate of the only guns that use them - which is guns of 3" or greater. And there are 2 models that can be used 1 or the other, or both used and depend on the ship - Either Flak bursts all fire at the same time every x seconds, or, Flak bursts are staggered for a more constant bursting. With no random modifires to it - if a ships has a broadside of 8x 5 inch barrels - 8 flak bursts. Operating on a 5 second reload that means 8 every 5 seconds, 4 every 2.5 seconds, or 2 every 1.25 seconds. Something like Atlanta is a bit insane at 14 every 4-5 seconds, a good case of "should be halved" that while it may not make technical sense (unless Wargaming can pair as a rotation of 6 and 8 guns) to 7 every 2-2.5 seconds. And whatever flak bursts the ships have for long range guns - they have the same number at mid range. And Flak should be relatively low damage that is in addition to whatever the base line of the constant DPS is - it should be there to cause players to dodge, obscure view, and punish those that let 13 bursts hit them. But they should not be these insane walls that were seeing that can obliterate planes as they do. To summarize 'simplicity' on the player end - Flak does damage when it hits, either DPS is constant, and you know that you will deal x damage every z seconds the plane is in that AA bubble, or that 'hit probability' if it remains' is not some modifier that isn't what it says, but is in fact just that, a 90% chance the planes are hit by 40 mm rounds, or 40 and 20 mm rounds, or whatever. And that if a ship has G number of guns it fires F number of Flak rounds, at any range. 4. Consistency of modules - Look, with a staggered system, if we assign base numbers and divvy out the damage, a bit harder to keep 20 mm damage consistent, not impossible, but harder. But even if the DPS isn't 100% the same - the damned ranges need to be. It doesn't matter what ship it's a secondary on/AA gun on - if the range of a 5"/38 is 5 km then every BB, cruiser, and CV 5"/38 should have a range of 5 km - and likely a RoF of 12-15 RPM. Ones that are improved closer to 20 RPM likely are a different mod or designation, they all have that near 20 RPM RoF and whatever range those guns get. Were we to lower DPS of AA enough, and not possibly have DD's throwing a fit, I'd argue that the 5"38 guns AA and secondary attack range should be equal to that of any DD with the same gun and further extend the AA ranges (longer in AA range, but less damage per hit). No magic range increases from tier alone or just because. 5. AFT and BFT - BFT needs to be changed that it reduces the time between the flak bursts the same way it reduces secondary firing times. While having no effect on the smaller non DP AA guns. AFT on the other hand, needs to return to a range boost to secondaries and AA both, even the small ones - even if that means the minimum range increases too (tradeoffs). Not adding random flak bursts and what not. 6. 'Secondary', 'AA', and 'Auxiliary' Armament mods - These should not be 3 separate things, never should have been divided up in Beta. I'd personally change it to something along the lines of "Point Defense" or the like as this is more or less what it's improving, but Mod 1 should be as is beyond maybe name change, Mod 2 should return to a single item that buffs Secondary gun range, AA range, and Secodary accuracy, and Mod 3 should be a decrease in reload time of secondary batteries and another reduction to time between flak bursts from these same guns. Destroyers should have a special new module unique to the type, or at least any that has DP main batteries, that while it may not increase accuracy and all increases main battery and AA range (as opposed to Mod 2 as few have secondaries) and the mod 3 slot being RoF and Flak bursts just for primaries, not secondaries. 7. Plane counts or 'on deck' planes - There is no damned reason Lexington should have only 48 planes available. Same with the pathetic numbers on most every other tech tree CV, save maybe the lowest tiers that actually had so few planes. Every carrier should be following the 'Kaga' model - their plane count/reserves match historical numbers. I also believe the planes per flight/squadron should change too, but that's a separate story. "But that takes away Kaga's thing" - shouldn't have been it's 'thing' in the first place. I can think of half a dozen other things to make it different. What it should have, to compensate for weaker planes, is that they replenish faster then it's counterparts that have maybe similar numbers, but better planes. On the reverse end, while it may have 'better' planes, using that term very loosely, Saipan with it's limited maxium plane count, affording far fewer full squadrons should catastrophic losses be incurred, should have a regen timer so that it replenishes planes faster than now, and possibly than normal, so while it can't spam say 3 waves of TB's, it's not waiting as long on any losses to replenish. Which, if we finally get AA balanced right, yes, they aren't taking as many losses to -2 ships, but are still taking losses, and while not slaughtered like now by high tier ships, still heavier losses vs +2 ships, but not enough to become overly problematic unless you really, REALLY screw up and need to learn to play CV better, then these changes to plane counts and regen should be a non-issue. Still leaves CV alpha damage, CV accuracy especially after all the nerfs, return of odd tiers, aircraft speed, skills, control of CV's, historical accuracy in way too many areas, flavour and differentiating ships and lines, plane mobility, spotting, and likely a couple other things I'm forgetting to fix just when it comes to CV's but hey, it'd be a start.
  13. I recently saw a video where someone in the Hakuryu managed to get consistent very high damage with torpedo bombers alone. Seen here, this gave me hope that CVs are not completely useless now and Hakuryu could still do some great damage, so I got it on the public test (once the nerf came out) and my god what a mess. 1. The aim sight. Probably the biggest issue here alongside the catastrophe that is AA, apparently in a situation where they encourage you to swerve around to minimize AA damage, now you cannot even move slightly without the aim sight becoming larger than the map. The spreads are just so horrible now, and the arming time of the torpedoes makes it worse. You will have to drop from miles away where the enemy ship can easily dodge or else just have them bump uselessly into the hull. I don't know why anyone thought this was a good idea. 2. The AA power. Anyone who thinks the AA is underpowered is being dishonest, you cannot even go after a single cruiser, let alone a group of ships, without your squadron being wiped out or severely damaged very quickly. Moving around doesn't even help much, and just worsens your aim. Even destroyers can seriously hurt your squadrons now, and it's not limited to just the good AA ships. Tier 8s, and ships like Yamato known for being CV magnets can really mow down everything in your squadron, and you will only get about one attack run in before the squadron is useless. Honestly a good decrease in AA power would go a long way here. Because currently your squadron is being blown up just from enemy AA looking at them. 3. Restoration time. It's not like the above is compensated for by being able to rapidly send more planes into battle. Planes are destroyed so easily that torpedo bombers will take forever to fully replenish. 4. But what about rockets and dive bombers? Rockets can be quite nice for setting fires, but honestly you aren't gonna get very much long term damage from either. Bombs are too inconsistent and torpedoes have now been made obsolete. 5. "You're just not playing them right" I do not believe the CV should be a ship so difficult that only unicums and effectively play it, for the above reasons, it takes a whole lot of skill to make those attack runs work, which is uncommon. I am no new player, I had lots of experience with the main line Japanese cvs before the rework and have a couple tier tens. 6. People whining about CVs being "overpowered" Look, just because some rockets are hurting or spotting your destroyer or fragile British cruiser doesn't mean the CV is a huge threat to the whole team. As I said, any ship with any kind of competent AA is gonna punish those squadrons hard before they can do any real damage. If people would not stop complaining about the new carriers and actually realize they could be a good ship class if they stopped nerfing them to hell, it would be a much funner class to play now. Am I asking for CVs to be powerhouses with no real threat to them, absolutely not. But I just want these few issues to be fixed so they can just be more enjoyable ships to play. They probably shouldn't be as good as in that video, but they should at least be comfortable and competent enough that a decent player could get 100-200k damage per game and maybe even more in the rare amazing game. I hope the coming patches can address these issues and finally restore balance to the carriers.
  14. (Keep in mind I'm not a DD main) No matter what ship main you are you cant deny that DDs are in a rather bad spot right now between common CVs and Radar. So, I've thought of some ideas that can help the DDs out a bit (these may not be the best but they are better then nothing and Far better then just removing CVs bla bla blah) 1: Give Destroyers the Fighter consumable. This may seem odd to some but this will make a DD have Far better odds of survival when being attacked by Carriers, Some will argue that it makes no sense for a Destroyer to have the fighter consumable when it has no catapults. but to that I would argue that it would work the same way as the Fighter consumable for Planes where they call them in from the Carrier. After all Bombers don't have catapults. This also has the benefit of making it WG doesn't need to make so many Blanket Buffs and Nerfs to AA and planes to try to solve the issue. 2: Give all Higher tier Destroyers a Heal like Cruisers, I'm thinking around USS Kidd Level. This will make it that if a Destroyer gets attacked by aircraft or Radared it can at least get some HP back. Though of course the Destroyers like Khab that are based around their Heal will just have a stronger one. 3: (This is more of a change to all ships then just Destroyers) Manual Control of Large caliber Flak. (flack shells for Destroyers) So this is how i would do it: make it that the AA stays the way it currently is But for most ships there is a "4" Button that makes you take Manual control of the flak AA on the ship you are using. for battleships and cruisers this would be their secondaries. but for destroyers these would be their main guns so they would be a little different. While larger ships will just have control of their secondaries etc the destroyers would need to load "Flak shells" in loading these it would change the camera angle to be better suited for following aircraft and would allow you to lock onto planes like you would a ship, then a Aiming recital would appear (similar to the [edited] SPAA or World of Warplanes recital.) and then you fire Flak shells at the aircraft with lead and all Just like you would shoot a ship. this will Drastically improve AA performance but you would need to actually use your guns so this wont be a good idea when enemy ships are close. the AA would perform the same as it does now if you don't use the flack shells. While the last one is Unlikely i would Strongly advise the other two. If you can think of other things they can do for CVs Let me know of that and your thoughts on these ideas below.
  15. Este poste é uma cópia de outro que acabei de fazer na seção de sugestões do Fórum Inglês, decidi posta aqui também para a fácil divulgação para a comunidade BR. Mudar de Setor AA tem três problemas, mostrar uma HUD enorme que encobre toda a tela (tirando do jogador a consciência situacional da partida enquanto está gerenciando o setor AA), fazer isso ativa automaticamente a AA (o que acaba denunciando a posição do DD caso tenha um esquadrão entre seu ocultamento aéreo e o alcance máximo de AA) e a visualização do Setor Reforçado na bússola de batalha não funciona quando a AA está desligada (obrigando o jogar a abrir aquela HUD enorme apenas para conferir qual lado está reforçado). Dito isso, essas são as sugestões: Definir Comandos Chave para Reforço de cada lado (eliminando o problema da consciência situacional, tecla padrão pode ser "K" e "L"); O gerenciamento de Setor não mais ativa automaticamente as AAs (dando a chance de DDs permanecer furtivos e com o Setor AA direcionado para o lado mais oportuno); O Setor Reforçado sempre aparecerá na bússola, diferenciando de quando a AA está desligada pelo uso da cor Amarelo; Considero as sugestões #1 e #3 as mais importantes, porque suas implementações tornariam o Gerenciamento de Setor AA mais limpo e eficiente... Poste original:
  16. WanderingGhost

    No witty title this time

    I decided to take a bit of a break, from playing the game, from researching stuff to continue working on my CV thread, all of it. I figured I'd start trying to at least get a couple games in, and see 2 news things in the launcher that I knew I should have just ignored, but couldn't. 8.4 testing, and plans for CV's. But no, I had to give in to temptation and look, and then slam my head against a wall a few times. For all the tune changing you did as to why you did this rework one of the more consistent things was this would be "Easier for you to balance". So 4 months in now - why am I seeing the same stupid mistakes and changes as RTS? Nerfing or buffing the wrongs things, screwing things up worse than they are, changes that in no way accomplish what they are supposed to or make gameplay worse, more frustrating or just plain dumb? You wanted CV players to be jumping right in to action and all - so now you add in a delay, like when we had reloads in RTS, so now it's going to be closer to at least 60 seconds before we can do anything fun and engaging. Gee, thanks, and why is this? Oh, because we spot the teams early, something you were made aware of oh 8 MONTHS OR MORE AGO. Well before it bloody went live. And let's really be honest here - what exactly is it REALLY going to change here? Low ball estimate about 80% of the time we all already know where the enemy team ships are going the CV just confirms it. Two brothers most of the time the team in North Spawn goes to C, the team in South goes to A, a couple ships try and delay the lemming train, and some fool rushes the middle way too early. Pick a map and it typically breaks out that one team mostly goes left, the other mostly right, everyone knows where the DD's are between RPF and them trying to cap unless Radar gets used, gunship cruisers are behind the low islands, DD's are behind islands or lurking in waters depending on which DD it is and the BB's are mostly staying in open water because of how far back they are playing and avoiding any place a DD or maybe a torp armed cruiser is hiding. And quite frankly the "better" the players involved in a match the more bloody predictable it all is. Also as a side note when I took a break to actually play it took nearly 90 seconds on Land of Fire to spot any ships flying in a straight line knowing their general direction with Implacable DB's - they really need more time? And then you have the boost changes - did any of your staff actually think through that this was going to impact ability to dodge AA and ability to attack via change in skills and timing and all that will once more add to the skill gap you sought to close? I'm guessing the answer is no. Decreasing the top speed and raising minimum speed lowers the speed range which means less needed compensation for AA meaning your not dodging it like you used to. Now add in ALL the other things you have added to make it more frustrating to use Rockets and and some TB's and makes that even better because we can no longer try to better stabilize things by using just speed and very small movements to dodge as well. Which, that and the changes in closing rates will throw off all the times we have adapted to and have to relearn, again, all that as well as likely have some adapt faster or better than others and once again just add to the skill gap that seems to be ever growing, again, because of these changes. You again accomplish nothing bloody meaningful other than to make CV's more frustrating, one of your claimed points being you wanted CV's to be more east to access and interesting to more players - this does not help. And then you have the HE bomb changes - more RNG added, increased height of drop for increased fall time meaning more skill required and removing one of the last effective ways to deal with the DD your team lets through cause we can't attack it while trying to dodge it's weapons. I'll be first to admit CV vs DD is screwed up but wanna know why my Lexington is curb stomping Fubuki's? BECAUSE IT'S DROPPING 6 1000 LB BOMBS AT A TIME 3 TIMES AT 9200 DAMAGE WHICH TRANSLATES TO OVER 3K ON PENS PER BOMB AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THE MAYBE 7 DD'S THAT ACTUALLY HAS WORTHWHILE AA. It's the same issue with rockets, with torps, with CV ordnance since inception even in freaking RTS it's ing simple damn math. I hit 1/6 of those bombs that's 1/3-1/7 of the DD's HP depending on tier. So yeah, no matter what 3 attacks it's gonna freaking feel it. It's the same issue on Hak TB's, was the same on Midway's, still the same in general in places the alpha damage is too damn high.For just ing once would you stop trying to screw with accuracy and RNG and let us have accurate attack planes that can hit so we feel like we can actually accomplish something, and just nerf the alpha damage, seriously. And won't have much impact on hitting other ships? Your changing the reticle, RNG dispersion and height they drop at - I've had near max aim attacks on cruisers and BB's lined up perfectly, a couple times target was even parked, and had bombs somehow miss. Any change is going to screw that especially against smaller and more agile cruisers. I'd also like to again point out that also the reason they are getting picked on is they tend to be alone and isolated with weak AA while more and more BB's and CA/L are near untouchable especially when out tiered. Then we have priority AA - you want it to be more effective? Because as is many BB's and cruisers especially tier 8+ aren't butchering squadrons hard enough? Having 0/6 planes from Saipan attacking a lone tier 8 French BB because it's AA shoots them down before they reach escape height isn't enough? Or that I can't see some of the heaviest AA ships till I'm basically in their flak clouds - not even counting the ones that have their own smoke generator. Or the DF AA. Or the catapult fighters that can eviscerate a squadron just like the old broken strafe mechanic because you can't deploy fighters to defend AA shreds them before they even basically spawn in. Not to mention this system is still in such disarray, premium CV's still in need of individual work - and you pushed them back out on sale. Right before hitting them with global nerf hammers. I've already seen people call you out on what that looks like. You people shouldn't have released them in the first place, but no apparently greed got the better of you. And no one considered the optics of "hey, were about to release 50 dollar ships then nerf the hell out of them, does this maybe look bad cause were selling them seemingly strong then making them weaker?" New system - same bad decisions, problems ignored, and trying to fix the problem by working around it instead of direct fixes to it. So why is it again we changed from RTS?
  17. the tier 10 cvs are ridiculous. their planes never stop regardless of aa spec or fighters launched. just finished a match the hak singlehandedly kicked eveyones @rses its ridiculous. this needs to be nerfed.
  18. Bigs_Destroyer_of_Worlds

    AA Theory Craft

    Hey all, Just curious what the community thinks is the better skill for anti-air (if you can only take one) AFT or MFAA?
  19. 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???
  20. warheart1992

    No Fun Allowed

    Inspired by the numerous threads on Matchmaker, CVs and DDs, I decided to give a go at creating a bit of related meme content. This is just poking fun, no hard feelings towards anyone or class, the sky isn't falling . Please don't turn the thread into another dumpster fire. It's purpose is to have a fun time. I call this one the Kidd experience, at least for me: This is how it feels when you drive one of the AA capable DDs when there are CVs around: Share some of your memes or fun pics from these past few days, I did my part .
  21. So I'm sure there is some more specific section for this topic but hey its general so let the forum admin move it. The CV rework is out for some time now and some patches have been done to address a few issues, I'm sure more will come as I'm not sure they have really addressed the core issue of strike squads being able to just plow through AA as if it doesn't exist and the decline of destroyers being played. In my opinion one of the fundamental issues that still hasn't been addressed with CVs since day one and in my opinion is now actually worse with unlimited planes is the CV is really not at risk itself while being able to repeatedly strike and provide intel for it's team. if we look at most other ships in the game, they have to assume some risk to their actually ship when providing spotting intel to their team, they have to move within a range to actually spot with their ship, CV players can do this with segregates that never put the CV in danger. While I know WoWs is not a realistic sim game, it is based on some realist aspects of naval warfare so my suggestion will reference some. First, CV plane spotting should not be immediately available to the CV's team, there should be a delay in that info being provided. For that matter, this should apply with all spotting regardless of what is spotting in my opinion. Lets talk about a new consumable for AA oriented destroyers first. Advanced warning air radar. This was a real thing, though not a consumable just turned on and off. Fletchers, Gearings, Sumners, upgraded Benson/Gleaves, most later WW2 era UK destroyers had this and they were used as picket ships well ahead of a fleet providing early warning of air strikes incoming. I'm proposing a consumable for certain tier 8 to 10 destroyers that is basically a radar for air only. Range would be 12-15km depending on tier and nation line. Duration could be say 30 to 40 seconds, again depending on tier and nation line. Should be able to be enhanced by the radar upgrade. Next, lets talk long range AA. So in game, long range AA seems to be around 6km give or take and is provided in most cases by dual purpose main guns or secondary guns. So looking at this from a realistic standpoint a 127mm gun should be able to shoot as far at a surface target as it should a target in the air. The AA fire control on the above mentioned destroyers was excellent by late WW2. There are documented incidents of USN Destroyers bullseye hitting IJN planes out of the air at 10,000+ meters. I'm proposing a rework to long range AA (Flak) that allows "MOST" long range AA guns to start shooting planes, if spotted, at about the same range as they could start shooting surface targets, maybe slightly less. For example a Fletchers long range AA (127mm guns) could start shooting planes at say 11km if they are spotted. Battleship, cruiser and aircraft carrier long range AA (most often dual purpose secondary guns) would perhaps get a buff to say 9km to 10km. So obviously with things like the USN and UK light cruiser lines having dual purpose main batteries, spamming 152mm shells at planes 18km to 19km away would be a bit over powered. This would require some long range AA range caps by Wargaming. Next, lets talk spotting ranges of ships on the surface by planes in the sky. So the current mechanic, a ship shoots planes, unless in smoke it is generally spotted or able to be spotted by the planes. This isn't really realistic for WW2 era planes at long ranges mentioned above. Planes would often start taking flak fire and not be able to determine what was shooting at them until they were much closer. So I would propose keeping the same spotting ranges that currently exist. Basically surface ships could stealth fire on planes at certain ranges. Keep in mind we are talking about flak bursts here so the CV player with some skill can avoid much of the incoming flak.
  22. Avenge_December_7

    General CV Tips And Captain Builds?

    So in an effort to learn the new CVs, I've attempted to take my Midway out in training room against bot tier 10 battleships. The first time I had them moving but unarmed, so I could practice my aim. This went decently well, although it will still be a while before I try it out in randoms. The second time I did not let them move but made them all armed in order to try and learn experiment with how to dodge AA fire. Except after repeated attempts, I still have no idea how to dodge AA fire, aim properly while under AA attack, or even how not to lose my entire bomber squadron after making a single attack. I don't want to be a burden on my team in either co-op or randoms, so I'm asking here. Any tips on CV strategies, such as aiming, target selection, and attacking? How do they vary for the different national lines? How do the captain builds and upgrades pan out for each CV?
  23. This was a match that I ended right now, it was the most rage inducing one at that, specially with grounding autopilot AND autopilot trying to avoid grounding when I clearly wanted to (to avoid DD torpedoes). Now you say, wow, what an [edited], he`s showing a match where he got first, and a T6 battle at that, but the thing isn`t the position, but the plane kills distribution in the other team, THEY GROUPED UP and for almost 10 minutes I couldn`t do a thing, I had to fly around for minutes doing nothing or doing single long range attack runs because if I tried to do something I`d be met with crazy AA...even for T6 ships and DDs. And this is the detailed report. I've got deplaned with every single plane type I had, even fighter consumable, I managed to do damage because I was a T8 full, my planes were able to survive to drop an attack run and recall them, even when getting ambushed by AA from stealthy DDs, and as everyone can see, the damage is spread through A LOT of ships. Now, you might be thinking, from what you read from the title, is that CVs are OP because they're able to do damage even under heavy AA fire, right? WRONG. You think CVs are OP because the games you played, your team probably split, and if you see the stats, those were a T8 CV stat in a T6 battle where the enemy team was grouped together, in case they didn't, the match would probably have ended earlier or with a lot more damage. Next time you're playing and see an enemy CV that you don't like, try grouping up, 3km is fine since after the attack run, the planes fly forward for around 3~4km before letting you command them, meaning you'll probably kill 3~4, if not all, same applies for fighter consumable. Additional info: *No, the planes didn't die for enemy fighters, I don't fall for that. *No, the enemy CV didn't try to focus me, I just saw that the team was all the way north and grounded in the middle, protected from shells but at 8~10km range of the enemy.
  24. Ares1967

    Random thoughts...

    Upfront. I don't like CVs. They could be removed tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me one bit. They are here, and I enjoy the game, so I don't throw a tantrum over them. I'm going to share some opinions though. AA. So your bottom tier CV cant attack most higher tier ships therefore AA must be nerfed. AA gets nerfed and the gripe immediately becomes I cant attack a cluster of ships, AA must be nerfed. I have zero sympathy. The only thing a CV ever has to worry about is AA. If a match gets to the point a CV is under direct fire from anything, his team suffered a epic collapse, or he failed to keep an eye on the developing battle. Top tier AA should be devastating to a bottom tier CV. A Top tier CV should be able to pretty much ignore bottom tier AA. Yes its gonna suck to play a T8 CV 70ish percent of the time. That's the price extracted to get to a T10. Someone brought up "scaling" AA damage in a private conversation. Just the fact it could be seriously suggested indicates a problem with expectations. Scaling a mechanic is a horrible idea on so many levels. So we scale AA so a Lex can get through the AA of a Mino. Do we also scale it so a Dallas can be a decen th threat to that same Lex? What about Asashio? Do we scale the Asashios AA so it can be a threat to at least a cat fighter? Or is this only for the benefit of the CV and screw anyone else. Where else do we apply this? IJN 127mm guns shoot faster and do more damage when shooting a BB? Sims torps do 20k base damage when hitting a Musashi? CO only takes half Cit damage from an FDG? I consider each of these on the same level as scaling AA. DD vs the rework CV. My opinion the rework upset DD balance to a very large extent. Before the rework it took a better than average CV player to be a threat to any DD. Now due to rocket planes, multiple attack abilities, squad launch speed, and multiple CVs, many DDs have been beat with a nerf bat. I'm going to give an extreme example. A week or so back I jumped in a cap knowing both CVs were hunting me. Being in a Groz, I didnt really care. 43 planes later my trusty Divmate arrived in his Wooster. Yeah I lost half my HP, but I stopped their points, eventually got the cap, and we won a very close match. What if I had been in a Shima? Pre rework I'd have taken my chances against any CV player in that si3tuation in any DD. Post rework, especially with 2 CVs? We're gonna lose if it comes down to me heading into that cap. As a possibly better than average DD player I have a couple of operating principles. One is, never throw away my ship unless its gonna cost the red team far more than my loss cost the green. I dont sit back spamming torps unless the situation forces me. I'll cap contest and start a gunfight with almost any ship while in any DD if I get the slightest advantage out of it. Since the rework I added another operating principle. I don't push double CVs in most of my DDs. That means when a BB or cruiser player is crying about no spotting... tough. My ship is as important to me as yours is to you. You want me to push into that cap while you sit behind an island or park beside a Mino... fat chance buddy. Push a flank? You first. See, DDs got told to adapt. It works both ways. You're just not gonna like how I adapt. I'm sure there are some unicums that can pull off anything, I wish you luck drawing them more than you draw me. I'm going to keep playing the game but I reserve the right to play it for my enjoyment and screw everyone else. I learned that last part from CV players.
  25. So the REEE-work(thanks Yuro) is quite bad i mean right now the only cvs worth the trouble are the Midway and the Lexinton(when MM actually puts you against your own tier...... and it's not full of AA ships and they are not all bunched up) also after the hotfix(that only made things worse) made rocket planes useless and all other planes meh at best things are looking quite grim i mean rocket planes have now increased "readying" to shoot time and against most dds you need to have RPF or shoot them on the second pass to be successful also turn and shoot is broken now and you can only fire in straight lines; Air detection is now mostly inside the AA range of ships meaning that to spot a ship to your team is to take damage and you can't dodge flak(i mean you can try if you attack but then you can't disengage) AND that cost is 1000 credits for each plane you lose and being de-planed is still a thing and finally now that they increased the height that the planes need to reach to stop taking AA damage if you press F your entire wing gets deleted but if you have a successful attack(WG said something like this"we want to reward successful attacks and discourage returning you planes inside inside the AA umbrella of an enemy" but is useless because in both you take damage anyway ) your planes get deleted anyway.