Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aircraft carriers'.

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
    • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 24 results

  1. Aircraft carriers are extremely underpowered. There aircraft are weak in both armor/HP, accuracy, and armament. The armor of aircraft is non-existent. There health pool is very low as well. Ship AA is easily able to destroy a squadron of fighters before a single attack is launched when multiple ships are together and only one attack can be launched when a ship is by itself. Destroyers are the only reliable target for carriers as they have a low AA defense, but are nimble enough for 90-100% of the attack to miss, and the 10% of the time that if does hit, typical damage is around 700 for rocket attack planes, 900 for dive bombers, and 1000 tor torpedo planes. For armament I will start with Torpedo planes. Why are carriers the only class of ship with an arming distance on there torpedoes, Destroyers can launch torpedoes onto the deck of another ship and kill them instantly, while CV torpedoes deal 1,400 damage and maybe a flood on a cruiser. The same torpedo on a destroyer of the same tier does 11,733 damage, while the carrier torpedoes do 5,567 (Ranger compared to Farragut) in fact the tier 2 destroyer the Sampson's torpedoes do 5,900 damage stock. The dive bombers do the most damage with 9,200, but there accuracy leaves mush to be desired. From a fully "zoomed in" attack from bow to stern, 2/3 bombs will hit. the 3rd bomb is teleported outside the aiming circle and is dropped in the water, regardless of the circle being inside the ship. rocket attack planes are fast, low HP and are very inaccurate. This is realistic as they are dumb fire rockets. and I have only one complaint at that is the arming timer, why must I wait to fire my rockets? I wish Wargaming would buff carriers and/or nerf AA.
  2. Opinions are like Aholes. Some are just bigger than others.
  3. I have been battling on the "submarine battle mode" as an aircraft carrier. I can see the location of an enemy submarine when revealed by team members but when I try to dive bomb the submerged submarine, I receive no damage notification(s). I can only conclude that I am doing no damage to the submerged submarines which makes sense. What is an aircraft carrier supposed to do when fighting a submarine? Aircraft carriers are ideal targets for submarines due to slow speed and large size. When an enemy submarine sees an incoming air wing, they dive. There are only 2 options, either provide aircraft carriers with a 4th type of aircraft, "airships" armed with aerial depth charges and towed sonarbuoys, or magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) equipment. The airships could hunt down submerged submarines with a sonar ping and then drop depth charges. The slower cruising speed of an airship would provide enough response time to prepare an attack on a submarine upon in-game detection mechanics of the submarine. The other option is to introduce a new tech line class in the tech tree, one for airships that would focus on submarine hunting. This would be less practical however as naval airship operations during both WW1 and WW2 were for submarine hunting. Terrestrial airship operations were for strategic bombing and setting forests on fire. The best option is to equip aircraft carriers with anti-sub airships. By having the aircraft carrier player choose the squadron layout. Either have rocket armed airplanes and anti-sub airships as one template option or have torpedo bombers and anti-sub airships as the other template option. The option of airships onboard aircraft carriers would become available at the same tier that submarines become available. The US aircraft carriers have the best blimps to choose from for tech tree aircraft technology progression. Possible tech line, A-4, an army blimp which could be introduced at tier 4. At tier 6, the TC blimp, designed for coastal patrol. Then at tier 8, the K-class blimp, designed for dropping depth charges on submarines upon detection. The K-class blimps escorted the Merchant Marine convoys with great success during WW2. Finally, at tier 10, either the N-class blimp, known also as the "Nan ship", these blimps hunted down submarines during the Cold War but also served as airborne early warning (AEW) platforms, carrying long-range radar equipment within the envelope to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The other option for tier 10 would be either the USN Shenandoah, or the USN Akron or USN Macon aircraft carrier rigid airships. The UK aircraft carriers have a more challenging but still historically feasible line of airships to fill out the tech tree aircraft technology progression. Possible tech line, at tier 4, the SST class Royal Airforce blimp used in 1918, also called the "Sea Scout Twin". Used for hunting down U-boats and destroying sea mines during WW1. At tier 6, the HMA No. 23r, a rigid class airship which overflew the surrender of a German submarine in 1918. At tier 8, the R-38 class rigid airships, long range patrol aircraft mostly. Then at tier 10, the R-80 class rigid airships. The Japanese aircraft carriers will be the most difficult to historically equip due to a lack of source material. With that said, not of my own research but of others, at tier 4, the Parseval PL-13, later renamed the Yuhi-go, was an Imperial Japanese Army airship that was flown to Japan from Germany upon purchase. At tier 6, the foreign purchased Nieuport AT-2 non-rigid airship, served in the Imperial Japanese Navy. At tier 8, either the LZ37 zeppelin which the Imperial Japanese earned as a war reparation or the Fujikura Navy Type 15 airships flown until 1932, forming the core of the Imperial Japanese Navy airship fleet. At tier 10, the Nobile N-3 semi-rigid airship, used for Imperial Japanese Navy flight trials until 1932.
  4. So I got this game yesterday and immediately worked towards aircraft carriers because I always thought they were cool as crap. I've got the tier IV american one now, and the results are a little underwhelming. I went to these forums to see what others were saying, and I keep seeing everyone hating them for being too good and then people hating on them for being too bad etc etc. I also keep seeing people referring to how the aircraft carriers used to work, which I obviously don't know, so it doesn't help me with how to use them now. The mechanics just seem weird to me, especially AA. They talk about "dodging" in their videos, and it seems you can try to avoid the explosions, but pretty much once you get into a ship's AA range your planes just constantly take damage like they have some sort of poison debuff from another game, like there's no dodging or anything you just take damage while you're there. I understand that battleships are hard targets - I don't go for them - but even destroyers seem to put up a lot of damage and take out a plane or three whenever I attack them. I know this game puts balance above historical accuracy, but at some point it just seems kind of laughable to me that a single destroyer from 1909 is supposedly fully equipped to deal with several flights of torpedo bombers, and can take several torpedoes from them before it goes down too. On that subject, it seems nearly impossible to do much damage. In cruisers and destroyers so far I deal tens of thousands of points of damage and often sink several ships, with an aircraft carrier I get far more torpedo hits than I do in a standard destroyer game but since each torpedo does like 1/5 the damage as one from a destroyer it's meaningless. It seems like what I can do is spot for my team and annoy the [edited] out of enemies by doing little chunks of damage to them. This pisses them off but isn't satisfying to play as either. I can make a small difference by doing that little bit of damage here and there, but playing as something else would be more useful and fun for me, my team, and the people playing against me. Then again, I see others saying they're actually good, and if carriers are something that just requires a strategy or something to become fun to play then I really want to know that because they're my favorite type of ship. I don't know, just post your thoughts below so a new player can get some insight on the subject from those who have played.
  5. The WG experiment with aircraft carriers and anti-aircraft defenses has started more than a year ago, and although adjustments and balances are still being made in this regard, the truth is that the vast majority of the community is dissatisfied with the results. Some of the problems that can be observed right now are the following: Tier 3 and 4 ships defending against air attacks without even possessing anti-aircraft defenses. Aircraft carriers facing ships of 2 tiers lower or higher due to the matchmaking system, causing extremely unbalanced situations for some of the parties. Let's take any tier 8 CV as an example; in the first game he could face a division of Hallands and in the second game a poor Icarus. The little interaction between fighters with the rest of the aircrafts. Although some players find them quite useful in detecting enemies and fighting for control of specific areas, the truth is that since the change of gameplay took place, many players have been waiting to be able to directly control a fighter squadron. For these problems, mainly, I propose the following changes to the current aircraft carrier system: Tier 5 as the first tier in which aircraft carriers develop in the Tech Tree. As a consequence Hosho, Langley, Hermes and Rhein will level up and there will be no more Tier 4 aircraft carriers in the game. The return of the old odd-tiered aircraft carriers to provide a continuous carrier line from tier 5 to tier 10. The differentiation between fleet aircraft carriers, light aircraft carriers and escort aircraft carriers. Not necessarily creating new classes in-game, but only including more aircraft carrier lines with varied characteristics, such as light and heavy cruisers. Fleet aircraft carriers are large ships with a huge hangar capacity (examples; Essex, Taiho, Audacious, Graf Zeppelin, etc.). Within the game its gameplay would continue in the current way, with 3 types of attack squadrons; rockets, TB and DB. Light aircraft carriers are small to medium-sized ships, with little armor and reduced hangar capacity (examples; Independence, Ryujo, Hermes, etc.). In-game they would be aircraft carriers with concealment capabilities comparable to those of a light cruiser in most cases and would provide a new feature; controllable fighter squadrons. Due to their poor hangar capacity, their squad options would be reduced to 2; fighters and TB. The gameplay of the fighters would be quite similar to that of the TB, by left clicking, the squadron would take formation to make a “sweep” of the area in front of them in a straight line, shooting and possibly shooting down the planes that are in their road. They would have a targeting time, squad size and number of planes in the attack depending on the type of plane and tier. Once their attack ends they would return to the aircraft carrier just like the rest of the squadrons. Escort aircraft carriers are slow and variable size ships, resulting from the conversion of other ships into aircraft carriers, which have a small hangar capacity (examples; Bogue, Shimane Maru, Nairania, etc.). These ships like the previous ones would only possess two types of squadrons, fighters and TB, but unlike the previous ones they could NOT be used in random battles due to their, possibly, poor performance, instead they would be ideal ships for Operations in which they could participate submarines and destroyers. In the new aircraft carrier system the MM would be limited to ± 1 tier difference just for CVs, avoiding situations in which one side has too much advantage or disadvantage. This is how the new tech trees would look like: Due to their year of design/laid down and the fact that in most games the aircraft carrier itself doesn't engage in direct combat (laughs on Graf), some ships take place at higher or lower levels than might be expected. USA: Japan: UK: Germany: France: Italy: Soviet Union: Spain: Some lines have holes and some others do not reach tier 10, but it is not necessary that they all go to the maximum level, thus avoiding the non-historical designs and anyway undeniably increasing the variety of playable ships.
  6. You want to defeat CVs? Sink them with battleship guns and the help of a fellow CV player. 'Nuff said.
  7. If you are a WoWS player and you classify yourself as a "hater of CVs" then I have this message for you: If you are going to report players who play CVs simply for playing a CV, then go right ahead.....all you are doing is inflating your ego. We CV players will continue to sail our carriers into battle and fly our airplanes regardless. The Karma system is only a numbering system anyway. Arguing for "the removal of all carriers from the game" is asking for all of World of Warships to be one-sided: battleships are king, and cruisers and destroyers are their slaves. Remove CVs, and you remove the biggest threats to battleships. Remove CVs, and you make every single AA gun mount on all ships useless. Remove CVs, and you make Fighter Consumable worthless...Remove CVs, and you will earn less ribbons per game....Remove CVs, and you will make AA cruiser like the Atlanta, Flint, Smolensk, Worcester, nothing but "large destroyers". Remove CVs and you will negate the uniqueness that the USS Kidd has and the upcoming Pan-European destroyers. Remove CVs, and practically all ships will be making their islands their waifus. In other words, CVs keep enemy ships on their toes by encouraging players to stick together and therefore worth together instead of galivanting off to a single capture point by themselves with no support...and get themselves easily sunk as a result. We CV players do not have it easy when it comes to playing CVs, let me tell you..... CV players can have bad games just like every other battleship, destroyer, or cruiser player. It is certainly not possible to always win when in a CV. CV players DO NOT get 100% win rates. Yes, CVs are powerful, but their presence alone does not guarantee victory. It very much depends on how many AA cruisers their are, how many battleships have good AA or bad AA, how many DDs are smart enough and clever enough to use islands, smoke plumes, their low concealment to keep stealthy from a CV's planes..... the success/failure of a CV greatly depends on the what assortment of surface ships have spawned, or whether or not the CV is uptiered or not. A Tier VIII CVs usually have a hard time fighting against Tier X surface ships, and Tier VI carriers get easily swamped by the AA of Tier VIII ships. Hell, even in my USS Midway I get deplaned in a Tier X match half of the time! If you truly want to understand how to successfully fight CVs, then I suggest that you play CVs for yourselves and learn how they work. If you do that, then I promise you will get better at combating enemy CVs in your surface ships.
  8. Who thinks the Essex Class Carrier is good for service for smaller navies?
  9. December 7, 2019 is the 78th Anniversary of the Attack of Pearl Harbor, which occurred on December 7, 1941 which would be described by Franklin Roosevelt at the time as a "day of infamy". WoWS posted a webpage called Countdown to Pearl Harbor and written by Nicholas Moran aka "The Chieftain", which provides an interesting historical account of events that lead to the devastating surprise attack on the important Hawaiian naval base: https://worldofwarships.com/en/content/game_/countdown-to-pearl-harbor/
  10. just played 7 games in a row where i was the DD and totally destroyed by CV's constantly getting spotted and attack aircraft chunking me for 1/3 and sometimes 1/2 of my hp forcing my smoke and just waiting for me to leave, this is causing low DD games and anti-fun gameplay please do something
  11. So straight up this is NOT a serious post. Its part alcohol-infused day dream, part national pride, and pure silliness. But here's my big idea: What if we put another Yorktown-class carrier in the game, named her Hornet, and slapped some B-25s on her AND NOTHING ELSE. Well how does that work you ask? EASY! 1-3 planes per wave, insane health, slow, "one way" attack waves. payload: british carpet bombing pattern but with American HE bombs, yeah the big ones. Like, if you hit a bismarck you'd take half his health. WHY?!? cuz. drugs are a hell of a drugs.
  12. Wargaming, give us the night-capable, all-weather torpedo bomber we deserve!
  13. Hello! I always thought this was an interesting question. Aircraft carriers were frankly the game-changer for the big battleship-on-battleship engagements that dominated naval doctrine for years. They can send ordinance from the sky to eliminate heavily-armored warships without too many casualties to the attacker. While aircraft carriers were somewhat used in World War I by the British (HMS Ark Royal and HMS Furious), they didn't really hit their stride until World War II with Taranto, the destruction of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway and more. XX My question is this: If aircraft carriers were more heavily explored in WW1 (i.e. They were used more in engagements and had their equivalent testing battles...like a bombing of the German High Seas Fleet with British carrier planes. This is just a random example of perhaps a demonstration of good carrier aviation that could happen in a what-if WW1), how would've that affected WW2 naval battles? Under this, there are a few more questions: -How would've technology advanced with the rise of carriers from the prior war (i.e. rise in missile technology to destroy carriers? Better planes to avoid carrier AA fire?) -What mistakes do you think naval commanders would make with carriers in the beginning stages of the conflict? -How would that affect building strategy and the naval treaties during the interwar period? -Would some warships have been prioritized over others (i.e. more carriers vs the Yamato-class battleships for the Japanese? Graf Zeppelin-like carriers over Bismarcks?) XX Feel free to get creative with your answers and expand upon your own lines of observation. Thanks!
  14. Hi I posted these suggestions a couple of days ago in the Carrier section without realizing I should have put them here. Sorry to those who have already seen this. Suggestion 1 So I have been thinking about the problem with Destroyers being over spotted with the new rework and was also thinking about how aircraft spotting most often worked during the time these aircraft existed. Most of the time the Aircraft relied on visually acquiring there target before they could make an attacking run. Sometimes this also resulted in the aircraft sometimes spotting a target and then losing sight of it and also resulted in not being fully sure where the target was while still knowing it was close until they got much closer. Now I don't want it to be that complicated in game but I think there is a simpler solution. So I suggest that while the destroyer has its AA turned off its spotting range by aircraft is almost 0km. I also suggest that this be based on the current spotting ranges of each destroyer so a shima will have a spotting range of say 0.1km and the Khaba would have a range that is closer to 0.6km while their AA is switched off (or any values that make them almost if not invisible to Aircraft flying directly over them). However, when their AA is switched on and is firing that range should bloom out to at least the current aircraft spotting ranges of these ships. When in smoke the system should work the same as it does now which is already fine. Despite not spotting the destroyer and making it visible I feel it should still have the week signal system used where the outline of the ship is shown on the map even though it isn't visually acquired (I don't mind if this isn't included for simplicity sake). This should change when the destroyer comes into its gun range or torpedo range of the carrier. At this point the planes would be assisted in spotting by the hull of the carrier which should mean that the planes spot the target and the hull confirms where they are and makes them visible. But basically it just means that once in gun or torpedo range then their aircraft spotting range become the size of their max main guns range so destroyers like shima can still get in close if not found by the aircraft squadron to launch their torps at the carrier hull. This is so the carrier can have a chance of defending itself from the destroyer if it manages to find it with the planes. A similar system for cruisers could also be employed so ships like Zao and others are harder to spot if balance needs it to be. Suggestion 2 The next part I am suggesting here is to do with the quick spotting Carriers can do at the beginning of the game making destroyers and cruisers lose a lot of experience and rewards from not being able to be the first ship to spot a target which is taking away from their role as scouts. This suggestion may be harder to implement but I feel it is the best solution. The aircraft squadrons spotting ability should be based on the range it is from the aircraft carrier. With this the aircraft should be able to spot and make visible the ships it encounters just as it does currently when it is within 15km (or any more balanced value) of the Carrier Hull. When it is outside this range it should spot the enemy ships the same way but the ships it spots should only be made visible to the aircraft squadron alone. To the rest of your fleet the enemy ships possible location is all that shows up on the map. Basically this would work the same way it does when a storm is happening and your visual range is reduced to 8km when an enemy ship is within 8km of your team mates ship but is not within your 8km range so it shows up as not filled in on the map and is not visible but still records last know location. This would result in the Carrier providing good intelligence to the team but not taking away from the direct spotting of destroyers and cruisers that are meant to act as scouts. This action of gathering intelligence by the carrier squadron should receive some rewards to encourage the carrier to do it but maybe only half what you would get for directly and fully spotting a target. Both of these suggestion should solve the problems of over spotting the carrier can currently do and the impact the carrier has on the ability of other ships roles. Thank you for reading to this point I know it was a wall of text I would like to know others thoughts on these suggestions and what else could be done to help the situation that does not include "delete CVs" or other silly suggestion.
  15. At it's current state, Hakuryu is very underpowered compared to Midway and the 0.8.0 version. It was hit too hard with nerfs, and while it did need a nerf because of how easily people could get nearly 500,000 damage in it, it did not need all of those nerfs combined. The flooding chance nerf and the removal of the F key spam thing would have been enough, but the aiming change made the ship unplayable. But it could still be made great again with some changes. 1. Restore the old aiming before 0.8.1 The current one is slow, wide, takes forever to get on target, and does not keep up with a normal attack run. The one before it was much better, and just changing this would improve the ship so much. 2. Discourage Torpedo Spam by making all 3 plane types viable One thing that makes Midway so great is that when fully upgraded all 3 of the plane types can be effective. 0.8.0 Hakuryu had very powerful torpedo bombers, but then the AP dive bombers and the rocket planes were much weaker and not very fun to play. Giving the Hakuryu some good rockets and bombs like the Midway would mean a lot less torpedo spam. But the torpedoes would still be a powerful plane, just not the one the carrier should solely rely on. 3. One that is already in the game, the F spam nerf and the improved AA With the changes listed above added to the current version, Hakuryu would be just as if not more powerful than Midway, but not so that it is unbalanced. The super strong AA that currently exists after the hotfixes and the large number of strong AA ships in the matchmaking means that it would not perform as high as it did in 0.8.0, but still pretty high. 300-400 thousand damage matches would be a possibility if the player is really skilled, maybe even a very small chance of breaking 500,000 again. So in conclusion, Hakuryu needs buffs and the ones in this article should be able to make it powerful again without making it unbalanced. Keep in mind that it is not unheard of for surface ships to occasionally get 300-400k games, and since aircraft carriers were historically the most powerful ship class, why shouldn't they have higher chances of performing so high?
  16. Hello all, Being a fan of the old more micro-intensive strategic style, I would like to see it brought back into the game. We know the graphics, UI, settings, and coding exist for it. Allow CV players to choose whether to do the old style or the new style. I like the new style sometimes, it is much more relaxing; but it doesn't offer the same control and intensity the old style did. So why not allow both? Because a few super unicums might dominate with it? Hasn't that been the argument for why the current style works anyway, that certain players dominate with it (so we know it works). I see no downside; all sides happy :) #MakeWoWsGreatAgain
  17. I have always enjoyed playing this game with the carriers. However, they have become no fun and if you want to continue to give back large amounts of credits you won, then buy a carrier. They have included a service fee of about 240,000 credits for each battle and then on top of that, they add in fees for replacing lost planes and other stuff. Has anyone won any positive credits. Even with premium play its a joke. Imagine someone trying to get ahead without having premium play. I have sent in many responses to how unfair these carriers are and I get these ridiculous responses telling that i can add all this upgrades. How the hell can you add upgrades when you continue to go backwards in credits. Even in the public test arena, where you can add every upgrade, you lose all your plans before you can even get close to making an attack. As the previous post said , death to the aircraft carriers. As much as I wish that was not the case, but it is true. I sold all mine. No fun anymore. What do you say if you read this. Let me hear your comments.
  18. All of you people probably are aware of the CV rework. If you are a new player and you want to play CVs (aircraft carriers.) Well, think again. In this topic, I'll tell you why CVs aren't just worth to play with. 1. How you execute a attack is rather poor. No matter how much planes are in your squadron, torpedo bombers for example will only have 2 planes that will actually attack while the original CV mechanic will have all the planes left in the squadron attack. How you attack is basically doing a manual drop with the old CVs except the "drop area" moves with the squadron, and in 3rd person instead of a birds eye view which somewhat makes executing a attack worse. 2. They whatsoever had to remove tier 5,7, and 9 carriers and it also messes up with the matchmaking. Right now, it's possible for a tier 4 CV to be in a tier 7 match where common sense tells you the poor tier 4 CVs planes would just get shredded. 3. The micromanaging I'd say is worse than the old CVs and I mean a lot worse. All CVs are 1-1-1 instead of other flight systems. If this isn't bad, you can only control one squadron, and controlling that one squadron does not let you control the CV itself without autopilot. If you played before 0.8.0 and you played CVs, you can tell striking a ship with only one squadron is stupid and either you don't do enough damage or that squadron will get shredded. 4. Sometimes, the point of playing CVs is to have fun shredding the opponent's planes with your fighters. Now with the rework, its a pain to have the air superiority. Yes, there is a consumable on strike aircraft but it only patrol a certain area and the fighters are consumables and only circle your ship. Thats all I have to say about the CV rework. If I missed anything, feel free to comment down. This is just my opinion and it's ok to have a different opinion than me.
  19. NAfishyCaptain

    Enterprise, after the rework

    Do the poll first plz. Should I sell the enterprise? It seems kinda crappy now and I would love to go for the irian, but what do you, the community think?
  20. About me (so you know where I’m coming from): I have reached the T6 American carrier, the USS Independence, almost entirely through co-op battles since I’m quite bad at it lol. I mostly play cruisers and battleships now and with those I would say I’m decent at (54% win rate). I really like the old/current CV gameplay where the player controls multiple squads in an RTS format and I think it would be a shame if this was deleted. I also really like the new CV version where the player focuses on controlling one squad to achieve maximum damage. I think it would be absolutely amazing if both versions could be in the same game under two different classes, fleet carrier and escort carrier. Escort carriers were traditionally made from cruiser hulls and thus much smaller and thus held fewer planes (about half to two thirds of a fleet carrier). This is represented in game where the carriers now have 3-5 squads running about compared to the two squads proposed with the new carriers (the bomber one the player controls along with the fighters that can be spawned). Before I get into any changes trying to make two classes of CVs viable much less viable with each other, I need to get into why there is so much frustration around carriers in the first place. Carriers interact with battleships, cruisers and destroyers through almost entirely RNG which is to say they don’t interact. There’s an AA rating number each warship has and either that number is high enough that the ship under attack does or doesn’t get nuked by the carrier. A number determines all!! AHHH!! All of my changes are centered around changing gameplay from being solely based on numbers to being based on player interactions/outplaying one another as well as trying to make the changes as easy as possible to implement. My suggested changes: 1) Don’t delete the old form of carriers but instead add a new class of carrier from the new CV rework (as mentioned in paragraph 1) 2) Give planes fuel. Planes right now are like UFOs where they can follow a DD around for days perma spotting everything in sight. Giving bombers fuel means they need to head to their target immediately instead of loitering around to gather all squads together for a massive alpha strike. This also means that ships trying to survive a strike can utilize turning to much greater effect as any time wasted by the bomber on the target means it may simply run out of time to drop (going in circles for the win!). Lastly, fuel would encourage carriers to move in closer so they could reach more of the enemy fleet and the dynamics of it would be fascinating. I might suggest that planes have a range of 6-8 tiles on the mini map of range? When a plane runs out of fuel, the AI takes control of the squad and flies it in a direct route straight back to the carrier (much like bombers flying back after they drop with the new CV rework). Planes that run out of fuel could die instantly but that would put a very high emphasis on skill which is unwanted (a CV not watching his fuel could deplane himself within a few minutes from the start of a match with this lol). 3) Carriers will have a 2 fighter 2 bomber configuration (or 3/3 or 4/4 if madness if preferable). The important part about this change is that fighter squads and bomber squads are the same so that there is always a fighter squad ready to fight off any incoming bomber squad. The last thing a non-CV player wants is to have to fight off an entire bombing strike without the ally CV giving a hoot. 4) Fighters will not be able to lock or damage other fighters. This will effectively give the fighters only one role and that will be to counter enemy bombers. As the game is currently, where fighters can fight fighters, the CV has to make a choice, protect their own drop and thus get exp, or try to deny the enemy drop and risk losing their own drop. This changes the game dynamics of fighters and bombers to that of cat vs mouse relationship. I don’t know if this is good or not, but it will mean that CVs will be actively trying to defend their teammates. 5) A notification will be sent out when enemy bombers are deployed. Unless the defending CV is much closer to the battle than the attacking one, the fighters will have to be launched at the same time the bombers are launched if they ever hope to intercept them. An alternative solution to this is have the detection range on the bombers set to 8 to 15 kms so that teammates can spot the bombers far enough out so the friendly CV has enough time to react. 6) Fighters and bombers will be able to take off at the same time. Much like the previous change, time is of the essence, so when the notification goes off, waiting another few seconds before the bombers are fully off the deck is an unnecessary waste of time that may be the difference between the fighters arriving in time or not. 7) Bombers will no longer be able to be panicked. Since friendly fighters will no longer be able to take out catapult fighters/scouts and have no way of defending against incoming enemy CV fighters, it seems fair to let them carry out their strike unfrazzled. Catapult fighters/scouts will still do damage to the bombers though. 8) Giant water pillars resulting from battleship shells landing in the water will destroy any torpedo bombers flying through them while making a torpedo run. To make a torpedo run, the bombers have to fly quite low to the water. This was tried in WW2 without any success, but this is a game and I think a nifty way of how non-CVs can interact with CVs. 9) Non-CV ships will get access to a new mode, called Extra AA Damage, that ramps up their AA damage over time, but while in this mode, the ship will not be able to fire its main guns nor will its main guns continue to reload while in this mode. This will be stackable with the Defensive AA Fire consumable. Much like HE shells are located on 1, Extra AA Damage will be located on 4. Once Extra AA Damage is selected, the AA damage will start to slowly ramp up from 100% damage to 200% damage at its max which it will reach after 30s. The goal of this is to give the non-CV player a choice of how to deal with enemy incoming bombers and thus more interactions between the non-CV and CV. The problem with Extra AA Damage is that a player using it has nothing to do other than watch AA numbers slowly increase. In many ways, this is just a quick fix. 9¾) Alternate of 9: Non-CV ships get access to a new mode, AA Mode, that allows the player to manually aim their AA at incoming planes. The reason why I didn’t suggest this in 9) is because this takes a bunch of work to implement especially with the various gun calibers operating as AA guns. This can be simplified somewhat by giving all the various guns the same ballistics. I think the best option is to combine the gradual damage increase in Extra AA Damage to AA Mode so that players focusing on AA exclusively will do more damage than players focusing mostly on the surface battle. 10) The CV can see all AA bubbles of all ships denoted by a circle outlining the perimeter of the AA gun range. Any players using Extra AA Damage or AA Mode will have their AA circles change color gradually to say from white to orange to indicate to the CV how much bonus damage the ship will get from a mode that may or may not be activated. 11) CVs can regenerate planes due to their mechanics going HAM. A consumable could be added along side this that could speed up plane regeneration. With CVs able to generate planes will give them something to do even after they would be traditionally deplaned which is generally the point of a game, to have stuff to do. 12) Escort Carriers (or the new CV rework CVs) will have their planes behave much like the Fleet Carriers’ fighters in the sense they will take off from the carrier and fly to the targeted location except the AI will control their movements entirely. There is something immersion breaking about spawning planes out of thin air though I will admit I don’t know too much of how fighters work with the CV rework yet. 13) A new game mode where only CVs are allowed. Everything is the same in this mode as it is in Random Battles except the CV planes can attack strafe each other but not lock each other otherwise the game might just end after the first strike. On the other hand, if the fighters can’t engage each other, the game will only end to time or ramming. This is quite a long post so I want to thank anyone who took the time to read the entire thing. Discussion and disagreement are welcome. PS: I realize these changes may make CVs OP or worthless or actually balanced, who knows. It really depends on the various numbers assigned. Whatever the case may be, bombers are highly reliant on the time with the enemy ship before the fighters can intercept meaning that changing their speed is be a quick instant fix on making CVs more or less powerful depending on the situation.
  21. Lets face it we need some variety. Carriers: The entire UK Line which they are working on. The Graf Zepplin rebalancing. Italian Carriers: Aquila: Guessing around T VII (51 planes 30 Knots) planes are on the low side for T VII but it has a lot of AA and comparable speed to other CVs. Sparviero: T V? (20 knots 25-34 planes) compares well to Bogue/Zuiho French Carrier: Bearn: T V - VI : . (21.5 knots 35-40 planes. Oh and Torp Tubes?) It would be nice to have the Sparviero and Bearn go at it in Tier V. Joffre: T VI: (33 knots 40 planes. Comparable AA to Tier) German Carrier: Wesser: (Seydlitz refit) T VI: (32 knots 20 planes but of an advanced tier [VII Bf 109 and Ju 87] to make up for low numbers. Another with Torp Tubes lol.) When I did this list I was doing it for Carriers who didn't have a line already or one coming. This list is by far not complete there are a ton of other Japanese Carriers and other Carriers for UK and US too.
  22. Submarines in WOWS--It is an interesting concept. A few points to consider: 1. NEW Game engine--Macwrapper from Code Weavers will have to do a new wrapper for subs. They already are probably working on one for the new CV play. I wonder if the WOWs Halloween game will even play in October 2018 ? 2. Subs of WW2 vintage did around 25 knots on the surface. WW1 did 18 knots on the surface. Speed will drop to 8 knots or so submerged (this may not be an issue with the Oxygen meter). Depending on how long you are underwater, a sub may have to fire quickly before surfacing. There will be no Irwin Allen Seaviews or 1990s vintage SeaQuest DSV subs in the game doing 30 or more knots underwater. The vessels will be SLOW 3. DDs are getting overtaxed as the main sub hunter. CAs had provisions for subs. You can see the equipment on the Tier 3 Aurora. So does (yes) the Tier 1 sloops. Note that they have depth charge deployment devices on them. While any of these ships have a role in sub chasing ? 4. CV aircraft did a fair amount of sub chasing (as well as the Zeppelins of WW2 US Navy). What role would they have ? 5. While the German U-Boats fired fore and aft torpedoes, the American "O" and "S" classes, if memory serves correct, fired only from the BOW in WW1 and later. I will give WOWS credit for thinking of all the Gamers who have asked for submarines. It will be the hardest ship class to put in if they proceed. It would be a programmer's nightmare given all the changes needed to get submarines to work right. Astrosaint
  23. CPT_Alejandra

    I want to express

    Point system for damage the current point system is a problem, few people play and do what should be done with their boats to meet their own objectives of earning points and not to cooperate, the cruisers do not help increase the firepower of the battleships if not to burn enemy battleships individually and die quickly by carrying out individual attacks, the destroyers will only capture and sometimes survive because the cruisers stay hidden in their islands watching as they destroy the destroyers and battleships that respond to the attack of others. The guides that the developers upload sometimes bother me, because they say how things should be, but their system of points for damage will never let people cooperate anymore, the games become slow and they get tired of people, so that the game have more action and be faster should change the points system for damage and devise a way for people to make points by helping as a team. Many of the people we play work and time is vital, sometimes I have spent 15 or 1 month trying to unlock a boat with the premium account for 30 days, you can not take advantage of everything for this system of points for damage and for the little cooperation of the people. Another of the limitations of the game is always to use the same capture mode and when they put something new only temporary and the rewards are not satisfactory, they should give modules of the boats in the rewards, but plenty of signals, credits, resources, missing better rewards to at least increase the morale of the players a little. Battle for ranks All the battles should be by rank to make it more balanced, so to look for the balance by modifying ships and damage, is that the real problem is that it is not by ranges and this makes more difficult a more accurate balance, I personally had more fun to play by rank that the random battles, in the random ones we see boats of higher levels with capacities very superior to those of other people and more amount of boats in a very small map and as I said, the people little cooperate. Battleships and aircraft carriers The main ships such as battleships and aircraft carriers have ceased to be important for some times, sometimes these are alone and vulnerable to the destroyers, they should have a higher value within the game, the battleships of the game are very fragile compared to the battleships that once existed, a Musashi in the game does not support the same damage that the ship received in reality, they should organize the life points of the battleships and limit the amount in the games, for those who do not know the Musashi I recieved damage 19 torpedoes and 17 large bombs even though it was reluctant to sink, but all these great ships sink from the scare within the game, also that does not have all the anti-torpedo defenses that existed in the largest battleships in history. The largest battleships in history were built by sections with a good armor for when a torpedo if it penetrated the hull the battleship was not flooded and the internal parts of the armor were not affected and this does not have it in the game, only impact them and already they begin to be flooded losing an amount of exaggerated life. The aircraft carriers I like a lot but if people do not see the importance of this ship, their planes will be easily hunted and soon, people do not support the fighters many times and these are lost, it would be great if the battleships deployed ships with engineers for the installation of anti-aircraft turrets on the islands. Battle of clans The battle of clans should be able to be played by ranks as well, from rank 5 onwards because this would make people who are just starting to be more motivated, the higher the level of the bigger ship the reward for the participants and the clan, it would also be very good that the clan leader can create his own map with the help of the AI, random creation of the maps and not repeat the same formation of islands, and so each clan plays a game on a map and the second round in the another clan. It would be great if not only people with rank 10 could participate
  24. Vinsable

    Split Screen

    Half the screen for Aircraft Control, the other for Ship Control