Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aircraft carrier'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • 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
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

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 27 results

  1. Corpral_Hikimura

    Idea for CV balance change

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

    FDR embargo has fallen?

    Hello, FDR has her embargo fall? Richtofen too? I know Richtofen will hit our shores on 08/05/2020... But already? I see ST doing matchs today...
  3. dEsTurbed1

    Why I hate Carriers

    So why would I hate Carriers after living through RTS and double carriers in the beginning? Within 1 minute my destroyer can loose over half it's health. All AA under tier 8 is useless and puts your ship at the mercy of enemy carriers skill. Being able to take a Des Moines and stop a push while hugging an island, to suddenly loosing 20l health to a midway bomb attack with def AA on.... ... It is real simple, skill gap still exists, but now it's fun for noobs to fly planes. A good CV player dictates a match, a bad one is worse than an afk dd.... .... Dealing with, dodging and being focused is still no fun, but now it takes less skill to do it. Now that we have AP rockets, I'm going to learn to love my carriers again.
  4. Back when the carrier rework happened, Wargaming stated that the odd carriers would be taken out of the tech trees, but could return. The motivation behind this post is to start a conversation about what ways we could add these carriers back in a supporting role. Warning: This is a hybrid request/conversation/rant/essay by me about bringing carriers Back and improved that not everybody will hate on but still being somewhat powerful. So my idea would be bringing back the odd carriers and arming them with support aircraft and support consumables. Basically instead of Attack, Torpedo, and bomber aircraft, we get Smoke “bomber”, Depth charge bombers, and consumable dropping “bombers”. Now smoke bomber aircraft are self explanatory, but they drop smoke canisters that act like destroyer smokes, and smoke a area for a period of time. Depth charge Bombers would drop depth charges to help destroy submarines, like destroyers and light cruisers can do in the submarine test servers. Now what do consumable bombers do ? You might ask. They drop consumable parcels instead of bombs. This is probably the main aircraft of these Support carriers. The consumable has to be dropped on a allied ship, like a bomb or rocket, and give that ally a randomly selected consumable their ship has equipped. The reason this is powerful and can turn the tide of a battle is it can sustain a battleship or heavy cruiser with repair party consumables to the point of allowing a small task force with a support carrier to win a game against a 4 man squad of Mushashis if they work together well enough. Now what about patrol fighters ? Well we give these support carriers a buffed fighter consumable that escorts an allied ship that it is dropped on, similarly to the ship borne fighter consumable. Now what about national differences ? Well we tackle this like fleet carriers. American aircraft are just versatile, Japanese support aircraft carriers drop recon aircraft instead of patrol fighters for their consumable. And Britain, if they ever would get this, would get their merchant aircraft carriers, in the form of consumable bombers that drop 1 of each type of consumable equipped on an allied ship. Germany doesn't get anything until they get a proper fleet carrier tree. And balance between teams? I propose support carriers be added as separate from fleet carriers as their own class. They are considered less powerful than a fleet carrier and are matched with a fleet carrier on their own team so there is a 1:1 ratio of carrier borne power on the teams. So either green team gets 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier vs 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier or 2 support carriers vs 2 support carriers. Research: I propose that these aircraft carriers are placed horizontally next to the fleet carriers at rank 6/VI and so they are behind a basic Carrier skill wall to prevent widespread groups of noobs dropping smoke on their allies at spawn. Reason for these to exist ?: I believe these carriers could not only give meaning to the odd carriers that were dropped but these support carriers could also help the lives of other ship classes, destroyers could actually get damage instead of having to drop smoke for allies or deal with the soon to drop submarines, designated team players like me (I like being useful by defending battleships from carriers with my Dallas) could get a new and gimmicky class of support ship, carrier players that don’t want to be hated for playing a cool class could get a new and less hated version of it, and players who want to help turn the tide of a battle without direct combat could finally support their allies. For those who think “WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE BALANCE” I say, you still depend on your allies to win, and you don’t have direct power over the battle, but if your team communicates you could have a sweeping amount of influence over the game. Premiums: (Yes, I had to add this to it to make it remotely possible) Shinano, the Yamato hull aircraft carrier. The proposition that has repeatedly been put up in suggestions as a T10 Premium but fails because of the fact it was a transport carrier instead of a fleet carrier. We could solve this by having her as a specialty support carrier that has the depth charge bombers and smoke bombers, but instead of consumable bombers, she can land a squadron of her planes on other allied carriers to refill their hanger of combat aircraft. (The aircraft would be split between the respective aircraft carrier’s aircraft classes.) The reason for this is because she carried aircraft in a transport hanger, not a combat hanger. This could be good reason for shinano being able to land her aircraft on other carriers. Or she could have the normal IJN carrier aircraft and have support capabilities to make her more versatile I end my essay here, please talk out this idea in the (comments? I think) and keep it civilized. And if anyone would kindly do some more research on the real world classes of support carriers and suggest them please do, but please credit me for the basic format/system I have put forward and the national specialties. (The actual idea of an alternate line was stated when they removed the odd tiers, and they mentioned firefighting and smoke planes.)(I spent 3 Hours working on this.) If you would like to learn about where I got the idea, Wikipedia merchant aircraft carriers (where I got the idea for the consumable aircraft and British specialty), the PB4Y/ B24 ( American long range bomber and maritime patrol aircraft, the PB4Y actually used depth charges and gave me the idea for the depth charge bombers.) and google the M-10 Smoke tank (a smoke tank used by the USAAF to drop a smokescreen in combat.) Just a excerpt from wikipedia on MAC's or merchant aircraft carriers. A merchant aircraft carrier (also known as a MAC) was a limited-purpose aircraft carrier operated under British and Dutch civilian registry during World War II. MACs were adapted by adding a flight deck to a bulk grain ship or oil tanker enabling it to operate anti-submarine aircraft in support of Allied convoys during the Battle of the Atlantic. Despite their quasi-military function, MACs retained their mercantile status, continued to carry cargo and operated under civilian command. MACs began entering service in May 1943 and although originally intended as an interim measure pending the introduction of escort carriers, they remained operational until the end of the war in Europe.
  5. metalhualer5165

    German carriers will they be added

    Wargaming are you planning on adding German carriers to WoWs in a line or a premium ship. If anyone else thinks that German carriers may be a good idea to add this ship class to the German tech tree in a premium or a line let's talk about it. I think that adding German CVs will add more diversity to WoWs in gameplay and choices of every player in the game.
  6. I wanted to share this.....hanging around business :v and here’s my more successful landing I’m hoping to make a server so that I can play with others who happens to play this amazing game.... I am using mods on this game and will provide a link to it hopefully soon
  7. Many of us especially aircraft carrier players have known that Last Gasp (LG) is likely the most useless commander skill for CV. As described by the in-game description, this skill restores the engine boost of the carriers’ last strike squadron. It means that when a squadron is left with only one more attack group/flight/run/whatever-you-call-it, its engine boost is completely refilled so that the player can decelerate or accelerate accordingly. However, here is the conundrum for players taking Last Gasp; for an attack group having two or one plane each, the planes in the final attack group are to be expected to be shot down before dropping their payload even though the engine boost has been completely restored. This is indeed a waste of one point of skill that could be collected for more useful skill(s). Therefore, I suggest Enhanced Patrol Fighters skill to replace LG with the following parameters. First of all, this skill should provide one more fighter in the squadron when summoned. This means that they can take down one more hostile aircraft when they are engaged within engagement area. It is true that this skill would benefit Enterprise the most because she already has 10 patrol fighters in a summonable squadron. Since Direction Center for Fighters skill does not add one more fighter for the squadron’s patrol fighters, this parameter is deemed useful regardless of the tier of the CV utilizing it. Secondly, this new skill will also add one more charge of squadron’s patrol fighters. By default, a squadron can summon up to 3 squadrons patrol fighters and 4 for Indomitable. With this new feature, a squadron can summon one more squadron of patrol fighters, making them 4 for tier VI–X CV and 5 for Indomitable. A CV with this skill would be able to summon patrol fighters by 12 times instead of 9. Due to the fact that Superintendent skill does not affect the number of squadron’s consumables, this feature could be beneficial for the extra usage of summon fighters. The third feature of Enhanced Patrol Fighters is it gives 20% more HP to the fighter. As we have already known, one patrol fighter has anemic HP that the entire squadron can be wiped up in less than 10 seconds by DD’s AA for example. It is a common practice by CV players or the decent ones that we summon fighters on enemy DD in order to spot it for the teammates or at least to set a strike. In most cases, DD with decent or at least little AA can certainly shoot those summon fighters down within a very short period of time because the fighters move in circle without giving any care about AA flaks thus dying to them. By combining both Enhanced Patrol Fighters and Survivability Expert (SE) skills, the on-call patrol fighters can survive a bit longer in hostile AA thus having slightly longer spotting duration. Let us take Graf Zeppelin’s patrol fighters for example. As a tier VIII CV, one patrol fighter squadron of her has 5 fighters patrolling in 6 km diameter. Without SE, her patrol fighters have 2825 HP. With SE, they have extra 1000 HP, summing up to 3825 HP in total. Together with this proposed new skill, they could have up to 4390 HP for somewhat longer survivability. Let us take Akizuki with upgraded hull but without any modification to her AA value. With both her long and short ranges AA combined, she has approximately 202 continuous AA dps because of overlapping AA auras and hit probability. Assuming that Graf Zeppelin’s summon fighters do not hit Akizuki’s AA flaks, it would take roughly 20 seconds for all 5 of them to be taken down by Akizuki’s continuous AA. The final feature of this proposed skill is it adds extra 10 seconds for the duration of the patrol fighters. Normally, patrol fighters function for about 1 minute including the first ≈11 seconds they take to appear from out of nowhere until they start orbiting. With this parameter, the patrol fighters will be able to do their task of patrolling for 1 minute 10 seconds. Together with the new proposed upgrade that extends the action time of squadron’s consumables by 50%, the patrol fighters will have 1 minute 40 seconds of activation time. This means longer AA protection for allies and spotting duration which are really profitable for the allied team. This ends my long proposal. I really hope that the game developers consider this suggestion for the sake of better gameplay. Thank you in advance!
  8. As the first Tier 10 Premium CV. With a few buffs, this ship would be competitive at Tier 10, offer a different playstyle from Midway (AP bombs!) and again be widely available for players to enjoy.
  9. This will be a short-ish post, but I’ve really thought about it for quite a while. Surface ships have HE/AP differences in damage, controllable by captains. Subs will be having their torps do different damage based on if they’re homing vs dumbfire, as of current time of posting of course, and again controllable by captains. Aircraft carriers have nothing. So to the devs, and my fellow captains, I offer this idea: implementation of random wind. In World War II, it’s common knowledge that to properly and most efficiently launch your aircraft, you had to be steaming into the wind. So my idea would be to make it so the game assigns a random wind direction, then checks the heading and power setting in comparison to said relative wind, and if it’s say 10-15+\- the proper heading, and a higher power setting (3/4 to full) a proper damage boost is given to the aircraft launching. Further, if it’s the entire wrong direction, the squadron actually gets a slight debuff. I say slight because they’re already damage deficient as it is. This would make it so there’s now a decision to be made in regards to how and when to launch your aircraft. I’d also suggest changing the winds every few minutes as well, as this would negate any major disadvantage that one side would face vs. the other. By adhering to launches into the wind, the carrier captain can finally have a way to modify his rather sad current base damage. So if you like this idea, upvote it so it has a chance to be seen by devs. Help make carrier play great again!
  10. Why do all squadrons fly directly over a target as they drop ordnance? AA is already really effective, to the point where 8 aircraft will be reduced to 2 aircraft in the span of one bombing/torpedoing run, just because the entire squadron is exposed to AA fire the whole time. Carrier gameplay would be great if: Custom formations were allowed. Generating the ability to attack with all bombers at the same time. Or maybe attack from multiple directions simultaneously like in an Anvil formation. Complexity and the requisite skills goes up as a result creating more dynamic gameplay as opposed to what's available right now. Of course with the current MM these carrier players would dominate, so carriers would have to be limited to 1 or 2 per team depending on their resulting potency. Also the number of planes in a squadron could be reduced, AA could be rebalanced, etc... I can't be the first one to suggest this, nor the only one who thinks this way. But based on the fact that I don't really see CV's playing at tiers 8 and 10 makes me think that people get bored of the same un-intensive, low-skill gameplay that CV play currently gives.
  11. Thats_JasonBourne1

    Advice on Lexington

    Just bought lex yesterday. Does the default plane really that easy to shred ?
  12. Review of the KMS Bismarck Review of the USS Enterprise CV-6 The Review of the HMS Ark Royal! Enjoy! The review review of the IJN Akagi! Enjoy! Here's a quick summary of my current model kit project the IJN Akagi from Hasegawa 1/700 scale. Enjoy!
  13. So I know that people are going to get angry at me and tell me CV's should be garbadge and be removed, but I'm going to say this anyway Tier 8 carriers, when uptiered to tier 10, are woefully underpowered. There. I said it. Let the angry comments and negativity flow! All kidding aside, I feel that tier 8 carriers are in a good spot at their tier. At tier 8, I feel that most carriers are in a pretty good spot with some even being borderline overpowered. Sure you can have a CV focus you down if you're alone, but usually you won't do a huge amount of damage or get an absurd number of kills (in my experience). There can be exceptions, *cough American CVs cough*, but for the most part, carriers are not as rewarding as surface ships are. However, notice that I said they were fine at tier 8. When these ships are uptiered, it's a nightmare! Now I am not saying that tier 10 ships shredding planes is a bad thing, I've gone full AA builds on my Des memes myself, but it would be fine if there was about 3 or 4 tier 10 ships as you can try and avoid them and wait for ships to isolate themselves from the rest of the pack. But the constant matchmaking I often have is that the entire enemy team is filled to the brim with tier 10. In that situation, the best you can hope for is to maybe get some chip damage on enemies while having all of your aircraft lost at the first half of the battle. In something like the saipan, where your aircraft replenish slowly, you have to rely on getting your armament on target while being sure you will be completely deplaned. That's why I consider it the weakest aircraft carrier in the entire game as of now. In short, I feel that tier 8 carriers are so underpowered for the constant tier 10 matchmaking they are faced with. But I want to keep this positive so I wanted to give a few suggestions to any of the dev's who might be listening. After all, we should try and give feedback to help make things better. My first idea is the most straightforward. Make it harder for the matchmaker to uptier carriers. Heck, maybe make it harder for some other ships to be uptiered like cossack and z-39. Other ships which have heavy problems with being bottom tier. Maybe after a certain time, the matchmaker allows these ships to go into tier 10 battles just like tier 10 double cv games were solved. My second idea was a little bit more risky. Nerfing the AA of tier 10 ships to tier 8 aircraft. Not tier 10 aircraft, tier 8, ok? Good. As I said this is a bit more risky since this could be exploited by unicums and statpadders alike so I am not sure about this option. Finally, my last idea was to give tier 8 carriers planes a little more health. This isn't the best idea either and is pretty much here just for the rule of threes. This could be easily exploited by sealclubbers who could slaughter enemies without fear of taking heavy damage. Anyways, these are my thoughts on this. I may be wrong about some things so I would love feedback from others. I don't want carrier's to be broken or horribly unfun to play as or against. I do want to see this rework succeed. I hope this layed out my, and other's, issues to those who were willing to read this gigantic vomit of text. Have a great day out there wherever you are! (And please don't get me started on AP bombs vs HE bombs. That's a topic for another day)
  14. Flavius_Julius_1

    Aircraft Carrier Bug

    So I was playing my HMS Hermes just now, and part way through the battle I had a squadron in the air, while the squadron was in the air I opened up the map to set my autopilot to re-position myself, left the map, then set myself up for an attack. Only when I left clicked, NOTHING HAPPENED. I thought no big deal, temporary bug, maybe going to a different squadron will fix it, so I hit the F key and tried again. Except that was only the beginning. I couldn't select another squadron, I could no longer speak in chat, I could open the map but when I clicked on it to set an autopilot nothing happened. I couldn't manually control my CV and drive it somewhere, nothing. The only thing I could do is press the enter key and then the tab key to select which chat I would theoretically want to type in, yet when I wanted to type nothing happened. So next thing was I went to the player support tab on the website (this did result in my CV dying), checked the relevant boxes, but then nothing. Nothing came up to let me type in my issue, there wasn't a submit button, nothing. So I am left to come here and vent it out and maybe get some real help on why this issue occurred, how to keep it from happening again, and maybe figure out why player support is not cooperating with me. Edit: I tabbed out to wait on the battle to end so I could try again and see what happens, and this is what I tabbed back into a few minutes later lol. (Btw at this point in the battle I had been dead for quite some time, so the battle report stating my death you can see is waaaayyyy out of date and is just another issue here lol.) When I have the patience again I'll load up later tonight and play, I had to use my task manager to kill the game as it had completely locked up. I can't wait for my brand new computer to show up tomorrow so I can install this game on an SSD and be done with it all lol.
  15. In my last post on this subject (CV Play) the CV Rework was just coming out, and I said I'd keep an open mind, and try it out for awhile, then see how it went. Well, here's my take pm it, at this point (6 Apr 19): The current Update to Carrier Play has caused quite a few players I know personally, as well as others I chat with during matches to simply refuse further CV Play, and many former CV players have even sold-off their carriers in disgust. I have tried to keep an open mind, hoping further "fixes" will make CV Play viable and enjoyable, but so far, have found it to be neither, and in fact, an extremely annoying WASTE of my precious gaming time, particularly when my Tier VIII CV is pitted vs. Tier IX and X ships—even a single, lone CL wipes out my planes before they can drop a single bomb. The CV aircraft flight model continues to be "jerky" (due to the time compression needed) and overall, CV Play has become increasingly "unrealistic" with each new "fix", causing some players resort to unrealistic "work-arounds" to "game the system" --departing even further from logic and historical practice so as to succeed in the faulty CV Play system. Although with practice, I will no doubt develop the proper technique for accurate aerial attacks-- while losing most or all of my attacking squadron by the end of my 2nd pass-- in its current state, I doubt I will ever find CV Play "enjoyable," much less "rewarding" and thus, will avoid it, keeping a token CV for "Spotting" tasks and little else. I have so far resisted selling-off my last CV in disgust, and have not enjoyed even a single mission yet. HOWEVER— aside from a much-needed toning down the fantastic hyper-lethality of AA in general, with some minor "fixes" using existing game mechanics, some of the more frustrating aspects of Carrier Play for both carrier and surface combatant players might be alleviated, as follows: SUGGESTION #1: British Dive Bombers should be allowed to carry, at minimum, 500-lb/230 kg bombs, and ideally, 1,000-lb/500 kg and heavier bombs, just as they did in real life. No aviation force would ever seek to attack armored warships with piddly little 250-lb General Purpose bombs, though they may have been adequate vs. small craft (E-boats, F-lighters, armed trawlers) and coastal freighters-- 500 lb bombs were the rule vs. smaller combatants, such as frigates and destroyers, and were the minimum vs. armored warships. E.g., in a 1944 attack, Fairey Barracudas attacked the battleship Tirpitz with with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, scoring 14 direct hits, which even so, only put the Tirpitz out of action for 8 weeks. Had they used mere 250-lb bombs to which the game currently limits them, there likely would've been no significant damage whatsoever. [Note that of 42 attacking Barracudas, only ONE was lost to enemy AA-- a far cry from the uber-hyper-collossal lethality of AA as it currently exists, and I'm primarily a surface ship operator, and yet I'm embarrassed by just how unbelievably lethal even my little Leander's AA is-- enemy planes just melt away and do nothing, and I've removed all my AA builds, upgrades, and skills-- they're no longer needed, and I pretty much ignore attacking planes.] SUGGESTION #2: Have the ENTIRE attack aircraft squadron, whether Torpedo, Dive Bomber, or Rocket Aircraft launch its ordnance near-simultaneously with the "Squadron Leader" (the central aircraft on the screen the carrier player "flies"). When the player hits his mouse key to "launch ordnance", remaining aircraft of the flight also launch their ordnance, but with a delay of, say, 0.1 seconds to 5 seconds. This will prevent unrealistic "robotic perfection" in the resulting bomb or torpedo pattern that surface ship players used to complain about. In the same manner, the Squadron Leader's (center aircraft) places its strike at the exact center of the "crosshairs" (or torpedo arc), subject to normal "dispersion", and remaining aircraft of the squadron launch their ordnance subject to dispersion from that point, as well possibly a short time delay, just as a volley of warship shells deviates within its "Maximum Dispersion" ellipse already. This is already included in the game mechanics, I believe, but it should be able to be "improved" via certain "Captain Skills" and/or via ship "Upgrades" (see further below). E.g., for dive bombers, bombs other attacking aircraft would have a similar "dispersion" within the "ellipse" that appears on the aiming diagram the player uses, and torpedoes deviate a few mils left or right (randomly) from the "center" of their assigned point in torpedo squadron formation. I.e., torpedoes would also have a "dispersion" of a few mils, left or right, and in time of drop, for each torpedo the squadron successfully drops. Thus, mass torpedo drops will have an appearance similar to a volley of shells, with each individual torpedo deviating slightly, at random, within the Maximum Dispersion parameters for the ship/squadron, just as in real life, and as surface ship shells do already. This would eliminate the unrealistic (and silly) game mechanism that allows only 1 or 2 bombs/torpedoes to "launch" from an entire flight of 4 to 8 aircraft, while the remaining aircraft of the squadron do nothing but fly along as targets, waiting their turn on the next target pass (which is utterly unrealistic, and NEVER done in combat). But it would also prevent the target ship from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of "un-dodgeable" torpedoes or bombs, as many will certainly miss, unless the attacking player is very lucky (as per warship volleys now). So— having the entire squadron attack at once, but with a slightly varying "time of drop" by say, 0.1 to 5 seconds after the "Leader" aircraft (reduced by certain "Crew Skills", as well instituting a "Maximum Dispersion" variance for torpedoes, etc.), targeted ships won't be overwhelmed by a concentrated "perfect" swarm of torpedoes, especially as they "shoot holes" into the attacking formation, and carrier aircraft will be far less exposed to the (already excessively lethal) ship AA defenses, but make attacks like their historical counterparts did, and with similar results.As a starting point, I suggest that the "mil dispersion" for Torpedo Aircraft be placed at +/-10 mils dispersion for early (Tier IV) carrier planes, and reduced slightly for each carrier tier above that, i.e., +/-8 mils @ Tier VI, 7 mils @ Tier VIII, and +/-6 mils @ Tier X, to reflect improved aiming equipment, torpedoes, aircraft, and training of torpedo pilots as the war progressed. Note that this mil dispersion is from each individual plane's position in the FORMATION, not from the Squadron Leader's aim point, as torpedo planes attacked in an on-line formation, spaced at intervals of 50 to 100 meters or more, ensuring a wide "spread" to increase the possibility of a hit for the squadron as a whole. Note that this also assured that it was virtually impossible for every torpedo, or even most of the torpedoes in the squadron's "volley" to hit the target, as many would automatically miss, depending on the target ship's relative course and subsequent reaction. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian) is a measure of angle, typically used in ballistics, i.e., a minute fraction of a circle. Easy to look up, if you're unfamiliar.]kills such as "Basic Firing Training" and "Advanced Firing Training" could be modified to give air squadrons a tighter Maximum Dispersion pattern, by, say, 2 mils each, as well as a "tighter" ordnance drop time relative to the Squadron Leader, say, by 1 second each. Thus a Tier VIII torpedo squadron with both Basic and Advanced firing training would improve its Maximum Dispersion to +/-6 mils, left or right, and drop their torpedoes within 0.0 to 3 seconds of the Squadron Leader's torpedo. For Dive Bombers, the Maximum Dispersion ellipse (that already exists) could be reduced in a similar manner, by say 5 mils "tighter" for both Basic and Advanced Firing Training, each. Thus, a dive bomber squadron with both skills would have its Maximum Dispersion ellipse reduced by 10 mils width and length. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian") is a measure of angle used in ballistics , surveying, etc. I.e., a tiny fractional "slice", if you will, of a circle. Easy to look up if you're unfamiliar.] "Sight Stabilization" Skill would remain as-is; "Aiming Systems Modification-1" might be extended to include reduced aircraft ordnance Maximum Dispersion as well. Later-war (Tier VIII and X) aircraft should be able to attack from higher up, and at much faster airspeeds, as improved torpedoes obviated the need for very low, very slow torpedo drops to prevent destruction of the torpedo. SUGGESTION #3: Aircraft Spotting of Surface Ships— THE PROBLEM: Aircraft are able to spot an enemy ship, so that other ships can fire upon it too easily and in real time, and yet, the range for aircraft spotting of an enemy ship is so limited that a flight of planes often loses sight of its target between passes. Currently, aircraft not only reveal far too much information to allied players, enabling any enemy ship they spot to be fired upon by all; they are also often taken under intense AA fire without even being able to spot the enemy ship that is firing upon them. DISCUSSION: Carrier aircraft of the period were totally unable to provide more than an enemy ship type and rough location and course to distant stations, and typically were, at most, in radio contact only with their own ship's Combat Information Center, assuming it was even in radio range, and long-range radios of the day were often Morse Code key sets, not voice comms, and the enemy ship type and course reported was typically vague at best, and more than not, inaccurate. So as to go undetected, attack aircraft typically flew on "radio listening silence" until commencing their attack, could not communicate with other ships in real time, and went silent again for their return to their carrier, so as to not reveal its location. SOLUTION: To reflect this and improve Aircraft Spotting of Ships, non-spotter aircraft should be able to see enemy surface ships well before they enter the enemy's AA zone— but unable to pass anything more than that ship's type and location for at least 6-12 seconds afterward. Thus, non-spotter, attack aircraft and fighters should UNABLE to spot targets spot enemy ships in real time as if they were a surface ship—they could only reveal an enemy ship's basic type (not name), and only on the Mini Map. Sighting of surface ships by non-spotter aircraft should provide a player's allies ONLY a "shaded red/dashed red" outline of an enemy ship on the Mini Map ONLY, in exactly the same way an enemy ship obscured by bad weather, or spotted by others beyond one's ship's sighting range is currently shown on the Mini Map. Such "spotting" should be revealed to friendly players only after a slight delay— of say, 6 to 10 seconds, to reflect the time required for an aircraft's "home" ship to pass enemy location data to other friendly ships. Spotting Aircraft Use and aspects would continue unchanged. PROBLEM: Overly Lethal AA's Severe Impact on Game Balance: AA is so lethal now that I pretty much ignore incoming planes unless they're from a Tier X CV. The rest just "evaporate" and even if they hit me, they do about as much damage as an 8-inch shell strike, and torp hits virtually never flood. When operating a CV, I suffer from having my planes wiped out on approach to higher-tier and even sometimes to lower-tier ships. My planes are often "surprised" by hidden enemy ships and downed before they can escapey, even with Engine Boost and calling for Fighters to help absorb attacks. Such hyper-lethal AA guarantees that I can never even make it into the upper half of scorers on my team, and am almost always at or close to the bottom. SOLUTION A: Have dual-purpose guns (e.g., Atlanta's 5" guns; the 105mm dual-purpose guns of Prinz Eugen or Tirpitz; 100mm guns of Akizuki…) either fire upon surface targets, or vs. aerial targets, BUT NOT BOTH at the same time. The player must choose, or let the ship's AI decide— When under aerial attack, it fires all guns vs. attacking aircraft, or at least all guns on the "Priority AA" Side, unless the player chooses otherwise, by clicking on a surface target. Medium and Short-range AA guns, of course, would continue to defend the ship, as usual. SOLUTION B: Halve the Hit Probability of all ships— Really now, Continuous Damage Ph's of 88% and 95% (Tier VIII) and 100% (Tier X) are ridiculous for that era, and even for today. Leave Continuous Damage and Burst Radius Damage as is, but entire squadrons vanishing as they approach a lone Leander CL is just awful. Even if this is done, I predict that another "halving" will be needed in the future to bring CV Play into balance with surface ships. This will work, and be balanced as well, if the changes above are implemented I think. SOLUTION C: Stop listening to whiny surface ship players that complain they "…can never see an enemy CV, and therefore can't fight vs. such an "unseen enemy"— That's the just way it was, and is. A ship fights vs. an enemy CV's AIRCRAFT, as the enemy CV is hundreds of kilometers away, not lurking on a tiny map, trying to avoid surface detection and destruction by nearby enemy surface ships, as in the game. In all history, only three (3!) CVs are recorded as lost to enemy surface gunfire. If anything, CV players should be whining about the tiny maps. But don't think because I say this that I'm a CV fan boy, or even "enthusiast"— as, so far, I hate CV Play, and plan to run a CV only as a last resort for a battle task, as it's become a waste of my precious gaming time, unless things improve. Obviously, all this needs to be play-tested, but such changes, using existing game mechanics, could be easily incorporated to make Carrier Play more rewarding and enjoyable, while at the same time allow players to use Naval History (somewhat) as a guide for their tactics. OK-- Thoughts, anyone? Trolls need not reply-- we already know what you (don't) think...
  16. Here's my box overview and progress report on Tamiya's USS Enterprise CV6 1/700th scale. Hope you enjoy!
  17. I was wondering what ships could be added new to the WOWS game, and I thought of four possible candidates. I want to know what you want out of these four choices. If we get enough votes, maybe we can get Wargaming to add this ship into WOWS! If you have Ideas for other ships you’d like to see in the game, please let me know! Also, please no spamming! I want honest opinions!
  18. 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
  19. Backstory The Soviet Union actually did consider building an aircraft carriers as a part of their plan to rebuild the Navy ever since its succession of the Tsarist Empire. Their first step of building one was using an incomplete Tsarist warships left abandoned during the Russian Civil War, among them was Izmail along with the damaged Poltava (later Mikhail Frunze). Despite numerous assertive efforts were carried out to rebuild the Navy, the Red Army managed to win its influence and hindered their progresses from the moment a Red Army bureaucrats examined their naval budget and “relocated” the funds whatever the budget list was rendered “redundant” and “lucrative”. Conditions were further worsened during the Great Purge and then placed into a complete halt in R&D when the war broke out. Even after the war, the VMF’s efforts to build an aircraft carrier has been kept in the dark, because the Red Army earned too much credits from the Soviet victory over the Nazi Germany with much pride to the point of denouncing the Navy as an irrelevant and unreliable military power to defend the motherland. But contrary to the popular belief of the USSR is always about land power, Stalin actually has a strong desire to reform the VMF to become a great naval power once more from the ruin like the USN, IJN and RN – as an accomplished naval man. Though his priority for the VMF was building his dreamed battleships – Sovetsky Soyuz-class, battlecruisers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines, he did felt for the need of aircraft carrier for the Navy. But because of Stalin’s big love for big guns, along with the Red Army’s strong influence over the regime, his opinions on aircraft carrier was perplexing. Until when WWII ended, Stalin seriously considering the Navy to possess an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, the efforts of realizing Stalin’s vision of an ocean-going fleets were short-lived when Stalin died, while Khrushchev came into power and forbid the development of aircraft carrier as he viewed them as on offensive asset that went against his regime’s idea of a strong maritime denial defences. Until when Khrushchev stepped down, aircraft carrier development was finally revived in a form of aviation cruiser. In the alternative timeline, if the nation was in better shape with the damage caused by the Revolution wasn’t too severe, if the Navy managed to convince the government without the Army’s meddling, their proposed aircraft carriers would have been realized. Those CVs’ existences would have actually bring a huge impact on the Soviet shipbuilding industries and would greatly change their courses in history, especially the VMF’s naval doctrine would have become different from what they are now in terms of flexibility in naval assets deployment and power projection. And the Navy would have been a whole again – as a blue-water naval power as well as a part of the Big Seven Naval Powers in the Second World War. Speaking of aircraft carriers, they would serve as mobile naval aviation platforms to project the Navy’s Air Force with much greater flexibility and operation range. Furthermore, they can help provide both offensive and defensive air supports as well as coordinate the fleet strategically more efficient as command ships that could supplement ideally with their flagships which are either a battleships, battlecruisers or cruisers, just like other nations. But, the Soviet aircraft carriers would access to attack aircraft/Sturmoviks and medium-sized aircraft to make them unique from the rest alongside with the German counterparts. More details about Soviet carrier-borne aircraft will be explained further in another dedicated thread, because it is the worst part about the Soviet CV line. Later, I would be as well working on the German CV line. For now, let's get down what the Soviet CV line might look like: Tier IV – Mikhail Frunze (CV conversion) "Brest" This is the first refit proposal for the 4thSevastopol/Gangut-class battleship, Frunze when a fire broke out in the boiler rooms, and this was the Soviet VMF’s first attempt to build an aircraft carrier for the Navy, alongside the unfinished lead ship of the Borodino-class battlecruiser, Izmail, at the same time. Designed to carry up to 50 aircraft. It was made when Washington Naval Treaty came into effect all over the world, although the Soviet Union did not ratified itself into the Treaty. This proposal, along with Izmail CV conversion, were simultaneously cancelled when the Red Army hamstrung the naval budget and “relocated” them to elsewhere. However, unlike Izmail, Frunze was saved from scrap for a several years longer when a 2nd refit proposal was made to modernize Frunze into a battlecruiser before she was eventually scrapped when all modernization projects for unfinished Tsarist-era ships were all cancelled in the mid-30s. Tier V – Izmail (CV conversion) "Astrakhan" Beside Frunze, Izmail was the other candidate for an aircraft carrier conversion. Like Akagi and her ill-fated sister Amagi, she was planned to be converted from a “battlecruiser”*. Other than building a flight deck above the deck, other modifications were also made by installing 8 x 1 – 180mm deck guns, removed half of its total number of 130mm casemate guns, and reduced its belt armor to 76mm. A 100mm/102mm dual-purpose guns were considered too. It was designed to carry up to 50 aircraft, while a total of 35 aircraft was proposed as its practical capacity. Her hangar’s dimension, however, remained a mystery. Same can be said for the 1st Frunze refit proposal. Unfortunately, Izmail was eventually sent to scrap in the mid-30s when the Red Army intervened to examine the naval budget and “relocate” them for a bureaucratic, penny-pinching reason. Tier VI – Project 71a "Smolensk" Project 71a was a design proposed to use a hull of Chapayev-class light cruiser to build into a light aircraft carrier, and this was the first design project officially recognized and considered by the R&D department for an aircraft carrier program. It has a unique funnel design feature akin to the one found on a Japanese aircraft carrier like Akagi. It was designed to carry 20 fighters and 10 torpedo-bombers, in total of 30 aircraft as its practical capacity. But due to its unusually large hangar dimension of its size, it can be possible to accommodate more up to 40 aircraft, beyond its designed capacity. Tier VII – Project 71b "Yaroslavl" No design schematics available for it, but assume this to be an enlarged Project 71a. Due to an enlarged overall dimension than its smaller cousin in a large margins, it is not suitable to be a hull upgrade for Project 71a. It can carry more aircraft than Project 71a, as many as 70 in maximum/battle-ready capacity. In terms of practical capacity, it is recommended to operate not more than 60 aircraft. Attack aircraft of Sturmoviks may be considered, but in a limited numbers due to its given dimensional constraints. Tier VIII – Project 72 “Ulyanovsk” Another aircraft carrier design submitted for the naval development program in between the late-30s and mid-40s alongside Project 71. Its design akin to a British counterpart HMS Illustrious. The design can accommodate up to 62 aircraft depending on the selection of bombers for its air groups. With its wide hangar deck, an optional choice of a medium-sized bomber and attack aircraft/Sturmoviks can be given to consider. Wingspan of a medium bomber must not be more than 20m in width. With its wide flight deck, it can launch an air group of medium bombers effectively. Tier IX – Project 69AV “Aleksandr Nevsky / Admiral Lazarev” – Kronshtadt CV conversion The Project 69AV was an aircraft carrier conversion of the incomplete Kronshtadt-class battlecruiser, which was halted in construction when the war broke out. It was proposed after the WWII to complete Kronshtadt’s construction. This was to be the first Soviet official post-war aircraft carrier. It features an unusually wide hangar not only able to accommodate as many as 76 aircraft in a single deck, but also enabling accommodation of larger aircraft without cramming burden. However, due to its “slender” flight deck and smaller elevator, deploying a larger aircraft such as medium bombers might be a little troublesome. Thus, their effective use could be limited which may result in a smaller air group. Tier X – Project Kostromitinova "Admiral Ushakov" Project was named after a naval architect Kostromitinov who has been studying the incomplete German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin’s design schematics for years, which explained how its design was largely based on Graf Zeppelin. Technically, it is a scaled-up Graf Zeppelin with denser defensive firepower and much larger aircraft capacity featuring 2-storey hangar decks with three elevators that can accommodate up to 106 aircraft in total with a wide varieties of aircraft - an unrestricted choice of aircraft class ranging from fighter class to a medium-sized carrier aircraft like Tu-91. This would have been the Soviet counterpart of a true fleet aircraft carrier to the American Midway, the Japanese Hakuryuu, the German Europa and the British Malta. This design, however, is possibly the most heavily-armed of all. This is also the most interesting design among the other proposed aircraft carrier designs in the past, but sadly it was the least known and had the least officially recognition, despite being a post-war design when a need of a fleet aircraft carrier for the VMF was seriously considered. Take note, though. Some of the parameters were modified from the original source just to make a few carriers fit in its tiers in terms of density of defensive AA firepower and increasing hangar dimensions to accommodate more aircraft. And remember, I may not be always right in judgement. But this is the appropriate one I can come with chronologically.
  20. My tactics are mostly developed for Ryujo. CVs have changed yet they remain the same. I still see the same mistakes CV players make now as they did before the update. At this point, my salt to this style of gameplay is lessened enough for me to play "normally". CVs were hated before, CVs are still hated now, and CVs will stay hated afterwards. What makes CVs seem more OP now than they were before? Who knows. The CV skillset was high before but it is much higher now. Communication Do your best to communicate but make sure to focus on the task in front of you Scout Scout either your side or the opposite side Find the weakest side you can find Your eyes are the team's eyes Do your best to not sacrifice your planes Move Set your ship's way points according to what your scouts find and where your team goes or does not go Take it slow and follow the safest side As the side becomes safer, raise your speed when possible One of the safest area's is the enemy spawn if you can get there without being seen Closer you are the faster your attack runs can be Recover Sometimes you are better of waiting than going onto another attack run so let your squads recover for as long as you can from zero Defending Do your best to defend your fleet but focus on your attack run When using the fighter consumable, make sure to drop it after the enemy attack run and a circle and a half in front of your allied ship, this way by the time your fighters can defend your allied ship will be in the circle and ready to counter another enemy attack run Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, go to your minimap and set your way point into a different direction so that you can avoid an hit but focus on your objective before taking control of the ship Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, change squads as many times as you can and use the fighter consumable in front of your ship, this will decimate the enemy(s) attack run (total of four fighter squads in the air is possible in short distance) Attack Find and attack the weakest and solo ships you can, do not attack heavy AA groups of ships Capping Be willing to cap Fight There is no use running from something you can't run from, whether that is enemy speed or gun range You have secondary guns, make use of them Most players won't expect a aircraft carrier to fight back Other I get my good days and my bad days Be fast, find the enemy, take a chance, be willing to cap, be willing to fight, miracles can happen Ryujo Skills & Upgrades
  21. I have received tidings about the CV lines rework changes, and by my gut feeling, it seems to have mixed feelings within the community. Even though I'm not clear about the entire situation regarding this matter. So feel free to fill me in, since I have been on hiatus for nearly a year. However, the one thing is very certain - other than just reducing workload stress on matchmaking & balancing management, is that the remaining nations' tech tree that has limited choices of CV projects to slot into the current CV line are finally make possible for both Soviet, German, French & Italian combined in the future. Especially Italy, they got too little choice to make a complete CV line, whereas the other three nations got enough selections to compose a single complete CV line. Since the reworked CV line now goes by an even number order of IV - VI - VIII - X, it is now made easier for them to fit in any respective paper CVs enough to complete a single CV line. More than that, it becomes much less stressful for both devs & us to dump in any potential carrier-borne planes for those CVs (possibly the main reason the devs had so much stress & strain to actually work on CVs). At long last, the underdog nations can finally see the light from the dark tunnel once again.
  22. My tactics are mostly developed for Ryujo so it can be harder to use on other aircraft carriers. My proof is in my videos. Aircraft carriers take a lot of time to learn and play. These are my tactics that help me make use of everything that an aircraft carrier can do and should do but most won't do. Speed and patience is everything and hopefully these tactics can help you. World of Warships 7 Basic Tips https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/git-gud/ Communication Do your best to say everything you do If someone ask for AA support, reply with anything If they hate you, they will hate you. Do your best to not dwell on it Scout Find the enemy with your dive bombers You can choose to attack them but do not have your dive bombers rearm Find the weakest spot you can find Your eyes are the team's eyes Move While your dive bombers scout, set your ship's way points according to what they find and where your team goes Any movement is better than no movement Defend Defend yourself until you know or expect where the enemy fighters and bombers will be Defend your torpedo bombers to the best of your ability Defend the fleet to the best of your ability Do not let your fighters die carelessly Shadow After your dive bombers find or attack the enemy, have them stay in a safe range from AA and keep them spotted If enemy fighters attack, lead them as far as possible so that your torpedo bombers are safe Attack Attack the weakest spot as fast as you can Once the enemy fleet is able to stay spotted without use of your dive bombers, attack with everything you got Recover Faster your ship moves, faster you recover, faster you rearm, faster you attack Cap Faster you clear an area, faster it is safe, faster you cap Fight If you are spotted by an enemy within concealment range, you are already dead There is no use running from something you can't run from, whether that is enemy speed or gun range You have secondary guns, make use of them Most players won't expect a aircraft carrier to fight back You are the decoy, most ships will almost always shoot a CV when they see it, those seconds or minutes you live is extra time for your team to potentially fight back Miracles can happen, I have 26 total secondary kills with Ryujo Other I get my good days and my bad days Ryujo Skills & Upgrades
  23. I'm in a clan "DEMI" wich offers -14% of the cost of researchable ships which is applied to all tiers , It's applied to all warships except for Aircraft Carriers , this problem appeared after the 0.8.0 update , I have screenshots if you want a proof , please check this out , I'll purchase the ship with it's real price after posting this ticket , and looking forward to get back the 14% after u re-look at it . Best wishes , Ghost_Castle
  24. I am wondering if we should have premium super submarines like IJN I-400 that can launch attack (torpedoes) planes and dive bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
  25. Please note that the descriptions I give of them are not what I'd propose of them in-game, Rather they're their historical characteristics. (the only exception being that of their Aircraft loadouts) Possible Tier IV: Sparviero For quite some time both Mussolini and Supermarina never considered the carriers as useful asset, considering the land bases sufficient. After the victories achieved by the British thanks to their carriers(Taranto and Matapan the two with the biggest impact) finally they decided to develop carriers to support the fleet. Since there wasn't time to build a carrier from scratch the engineers had to develop designs from existing hulls. Two liners were chosen to be converted: Roma and Augustus. Augustus, renamed Falco and then Sparviero, had a more conservative conversion in the end, based on the previous emergency conversion of Roma developed back in 1936: the propulsion system remained the same(based on four diesel engines generating 28.000 hp in total) while the superstructure was removed to make room for the flight deck. She had only one hangar and two elevators and no island was placed. The construction started in September 1942 and very little was done by the time of the Armistice. She was then captured by the Germans to be scuttled in 5/10/1944 in the port of Genoa. After WWII she was raised and scrapped. Standard displacement: 23000 tons Full load displacement: 28000 tons Length: 202.4(water line), 216,65 m(overall) Beam: 25 m(water line), 30 m max Draught: 9.2 m Installed power: 28000 hp Maximum speed: 18 knots Protection: 60-80 mm(belt) Aircraft: 34 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Original armament: 6x152/45, 4x1 102/45, some AA Reworked armament: 8x1 135/45, 12x1 65/64, 4x6 20/65 Tier V: Francesco Caracciolo Unfortunately there is little information on this Vessel's development seeing as she was scrapped very early in it's development (The Hull was constructed and launched, but never completed.) and as such there's little information on her, there is some documentation on her but it's not available online to my knowledge, and instead is in Italian Naval Archives. There were two planned design schemes for her, The first (and earlier proposal, which could serve as a A hull, is reminiscent of that of Langley. while the second proposed "refit"/updated layout is more akin to Bouge)This is what I've gathered about her: Variant A: Displacement: 24,922 t light; 25,542 t standard; 28,236 t normal; 30,277 t full load Loading submergence 1,310 tons/feet Dimensions: 695.54 ft x 98.43 ft x 26.25 ft (normal load) 212.00 m x 30.00 m x 8.00 m Armament: Airgroup of 72: 3 squadrons of 12 Fighters. 1 squadrons of 12 Reconaissance. 2 squadrons of 12 Torpedo bombers. 16 - 130mm / 50 guns carried in 2 single and 7 duple mounts 40 - 13.7 mm machine guns carried in 6 quaduple and 8 duple mounts Armor: Belt 5.91" / 150 mm, upper belt 3.94" / 100 mm, ends unarmoured Belts cover 95 % of normal area Main gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm Armour deck 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower 2.76" / 70 mm Torpedo bulkhead 1.57" / 35 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 130,000 shp / 96,980 Kw = 30.29 kts Range 5,000nm at 20.00 kts Aircraft: 25 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Variant B: Displacement: 27,085 t light; 27,986 t standard; 32,953 t normal; 36,927 t full load Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught 822.75 ft / 787.40 ft x 98.43 ft x 27.56 ft (normal load) 250.77 m / 240.00 m x 30.00 m x 8.40 m Aircraft: 30 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Armament: 16 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (8x2 guns), 70.55lbs / 32.00kg shells, 1927 Model Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists on side ends, evenly spread 16 - 2.56" / 65.0 mm guns in single mounts, 9.00lbs / 4.08kg shells, 1927 Model Quick-firing guns in deck mounts with hoists on side ends, evenly spread 32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (12 mounts), 2.20lbs / 1.00kg shells, 1927 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on the side and amidships Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 428.54 ft / 130.62 m 11.91 ft / 3.63 m Ends: Unarmoured Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 459.32 ft / 140.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length Upper belt covers lower hangar for its entirety. - Torpedo Bulkhead: 1.38" / 35 mm 428.67 ft / 130.66 m 25.13 ft / 7.66 m - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 1.18" / 30 mm - 2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm - 3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm - - - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,000 shp / 104,440 Kw = 30.66 kts Range 5,940nm at 24.00 kts Tier VI: Project Gagnotto Full load displacement: 25630 tons Lenght: 235,4 m(overall lenght), 215,4 m(between perpendiculars) Beam: 29 m Draught: 7,5 m Installed power: 65000 hp Maximum speed: 26 knots Number of planes: 48 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Armament: 4x2 120/50, 4x2 100/47, unknown small-arms AA Tier VII: Project Bonfiglietti Standard load displacement: 15240 tons Full load displacement: 17540 tons Lenght: 220 m(overall lenght), 210 m(between perpendiculars) Beam: 23 m Draught: 5,55 m Installed power: 70000 hp Maximum speed: 29 knots Number of planes: 47 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Protection: 60 mm(citadel), 50 mm(fuel tanks), 20 mm(hangar belt), 35 mm(flight deck), 15 mm(splinter deck), 40 mm(hangar deck) Armament: 4x2 152/53 Mod 1926, 8x2 100/47, unknown small-arms AA Tier VIII Aquila Class Ships in class Aquila Laid down 1927, reconstructed 1943 Europa Laid down 1927, reconstructed 1944 (I could only find references to a planned proposal for Europa, as I haven't yet come across her Blueprints or Schematics as of yet, and seem to find next to nothing on it's existence) Displacement: 24,023 t light; 24,738 t standard; 28,742 t normal; 31,945 t full load Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught 757.09 ft / 721.78 ft x 91.86 ft (Bulges 98.43 ft) x 27.23 ft (normal load) 230.76 m / 220.00 m x 28.00 m (Bulges 30.00 m) x 8.30 m Armament: 16 - 2.99" / 76.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 13.39lbs / 6.07kg shells, 1943 Model Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists on centerline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring 24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1943 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on the side, all amidships 40 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (10x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1943 Model Machine guns in deck mounts on the side, evenly spread Armor: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 1.42" / 36 mm 375.33 ft / 114.40 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m Ends: 1.42" / 36 mm 346.42 ft / 105.59 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m Main Belt covers 80 % of normal length Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces - Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges: 2.36" / 60 mm 375.33 ft / 114.40 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m - Gun armor: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm - 3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - - - Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 152,000 shp / 113,392 Kw = 33.03 kts Range 6,000nm at 25.00 kts Aircraft: 60 Fighter-bombers, Capable of mounting Bombs, or a singular Torpedo. Radar equipment: 1 EC.3 / ter "Owl" Planes Developed for Italian Carrier Usage: G.50 A/N A project which was developed for Sparviero and Francesco Caracciolo. Considering how the planes are currently placed finding a spot for this particular aircraft will be quite challenging, being too strong for the fighters carried by the tier IV CVs but too weak to compete against the ones carried by the tier VI CVs (considering the upgraded ones). It would act as a fast but fragile hard-hitting fighter-bomber (something which in theory would give an unique flavor to the Italian CV line (and would somewhat compensate for the lack of numbers), being able to carry out both the role of the fighter and of the dive bombers (with a 250 kg bomb as payload). Re.2001 OR It would placed at tier VII(upgraded) and tier VIII(stock). This plane was able to carry a 640 kg AP bomb, derived from the 15" shells of the 381/50(the gun of the Littorio-class) or a 600 kg torpedo. Ideally it would be the only type of plane carried. The main idea/flavor for an Italian branch of CVs would be this: Basically they only get Fighter-Bomber squadrons (Yes as a fourth class of planes exclusive to the Italians) Their planes would be much more fragile than that of all their counterparts, but to make up for this fact their planes would have un-paralleled speed (something Italian planes were actually known for in WW2). Being able to easily have the capabilities to decide engagements with the enemy carrier, but are much more susceptible to damage from AA fire due to their lower HP. And similar to USN CV's having to choose between AP or HE bombs before a match you have to choose if you want your Fighter-bombers all armed with Torpedoes or AP Bombs (yes they're all equipped with either one or the other). And to drop their payload you just click on a enemy ship, I.E. Auto-drop. Now of course you might imagine that having the ability to both dogfight and attack enemy ships would make every other class/type of plane irrelevant, when in reality that couldn't be further from the truth. It's rather more of a "Jack of all trades, masters of none" situation, I.E. While and although having the ability to do everything such as Strafe, dogfight, and drop their payloads, this comes with one major flaw: No manual drop. Yes that's right, the reason being that the "Manual control" would be Strafing, now of course there is a slight compensation for this (of course) you do have slightly better Dispersion-Ellipsis on your Bombs using auto-drop than your USN and IJN counterparts, but worse than them using manual-drop. Your torpedoes drop slightly closer than your IJN and USN counterparts auto-drop but not drop as close as you can using Manual drop whilst still having enough distance for the torpedo to arm. Though this is just my own idea and speculation and I'd like to hear your thoughts on ways to modify/improve/edit it if you have any.
×