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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 11 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. Warships; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? Greetings, Earthlings Fellow Forumers! So, as some of you may have noticed, I've started, and completed as far as I could, a little series known as "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" The purpose of these threads, and the charts that accompany them, is to keep an easily accessible record of all the tech tree ships in World of Warships, and just how 'real' they are. As you're all aware, people tend to throw around the slur (or at least treat it as such) 'paper ships,' usually accompanied by the statement we only want real ships, or something like that. Heck, I'm guilty of it. Well, some ships we have are 'paper' ships, but certainly not fake. We do a few actually fake ships. The vast majority of ships in the game, thankfully, are real, were commissioned, and saw service. That will probably always be the case, looking at what's available. These threads already exist, each in the relevant subforum in "Discussions about Warships," but that'd kind of out of the way, so I decided to make this one as a compilation, where all 4 charts could be seen, and the other 4 threads easily found. So, in these threads, I've catalogued all 4 types of ship, first cruisers, then battleships, next destroyers, and finally carriers, into these four categories: Green = Ships that were built and saw service Violet = Ships that were partially constructed, but were destroyed/scrapped before completion Blue = Paper ships in the purest sense, existing only as blueprints, but never constructed. Orange = I dunno. No, really, i don't know. These are the ships I can find nothing on, and as far as I know are pure fiction constructed by WG to fill tree gaps, which, I guess, if it's necessary, it's necessary. I'm not going to blame them for it if they couldn't find anything, so long as the fictional ship doesn't take the place of a real one. Also, any nation with a red box for their name box means the tree, and the placements within it, for that ships type, are purely speculation as to the ship placements. As soon as WG releases the details for what ships are when in those lines, they'll be corrected where needed, of course. As this is the case, if the name box above is in red, take the placements with a grain of salt, and add pepper for flavor. Particularly on the carriers, since that's by far the most paper-intensive of all ship types. Important: This chart is open to edits! If you guys have anything to add or to fix, then do comment, and I'll edit it! For example, I think I've seen someone mention the Orlan as actually being a design, but I can't find anything on it so for now I've put it as fiction, not a blueprint. Additionally, I know there were loads of Soviet ships that got laid down, but were never completed, so if that's any of the classes I have listed as purely blueprints, fire away! Also Important: IF you want to comment on ships placement for the speculative threads, please take a look at the thread for that ship's type, which I will link, as they contained more detailed descriptions of the the thread usually. They will also contain the edit logs. You can mention any edits that need to be made in this thread, but I would appreciate it if you would also suggest it in the relevant thread to that ship type, as that makes it much easier to keep track of and organize. Even if you're from another server, don't be afraid to shoot a message, I've already had one from the EU server, for example. So, without further a-due, and me running my mouth(fingers?) more, here they are; Aircraft Carriers: Thread here NOTE - Pending CV Rework for Further Updates Battleships: Thread here Cruisers: Thread here Destroyers: Thread here Edit log: All Edits will be kept track of in the Edit log for the appropriate thread. This thread is merely a compilation of sorts, where it's easier to find. Exception 21-1-2018: All threads repaired from photobucket shenanigans. Also, for those unfamiliar with the names of various navies; United States Navy = United States Navy (pretty self explanatory) Royal Navy = British Royal Navy Dai-Nippon Teikoku Kaigun = Imperial Japanese Navy Regia Marina = Italian Royal Navy (literally, 'Royal Navy') Marine Nationale = French Navy (literally, 'National Navy') Voyenno-morskoy Flot = Soviet Navy (Literally, Military Maritime Fleet) Kriegsmarine = German Navy (Literally, War Navy?) Keep in mind, some of the countries had multiple iterations of their navies' names across the timeframe of the game. The Russian Navy starts out as the Imperial Russian Navy, and later becomes the VMF after the Soviet Union is formed (tier 4 to 5 is the transition). The German navy was originally the Kaiserliche Marine, or the Imperial Germany Navy up to the end of WWI. Inter-war it was known as the Reichsmarine, aka Navy of the Realm, until 1935 where it became the Kriegsmarine. In game this depends on the line you go down. For German battleships, you go from the IGN to KM at the tier 6 to 7 transition, while for cruisers it's tier 4 to 5. My other "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" Threads: Aircraft Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers
  4. 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.
  5. I'm going to skip ahead and get these out of the way: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified (more on that later) 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be 4) It is not flawless So I've played quite a [edited] of the rework, both iterations of the the PTS and think I've found a coherent response to it: it's pretty good. I'd go so far as to say, this is PROBABLY the way CV's should have been handled from the start, which brings in how point 2) above works: the perception problems around this are IDENTICAL to IJN DD's worked (or rather didn't) and were altered post 'end' of Beta: something was released in a horridly overpowered, too influential, and frankly boring to both play and play against state, and is now/was reigned in and that pisses off the people that were entrenched in it. I'm gona spoil the future of the game for many people: Complains and desires to return to the old CV system will never go away, much the same way people still pine for the Torp Soup of yester-year. The fact is that the CV's in their current iteration are just too damn influential. I have a Midway, I have a Hak; they are just too influential. They can project a degree of power, especially the Hak, that no single ship can rightfully claim in a balanced game and can too readily delete random ships at will. And people who like that power, are going to be loath to give it up. Because let's be clear: it is NOT about gameplay. The RTT/RTS style gameplay of the current CV's is, without question, the *worst* example of RTT/RTS style gameplay ever made. I'm an RTS/RTT fanatic, and if World in Conflict and Age of Empires set the gold standards for those two genres, these are the WEAKEST possible examples of both. There is too limited of control over units, no variety of units, no real management of units (setting of formations, facings, ect), and the UI was abysmally boring to look at for extended time. Anyone who claims to hate the shift from the RTS/RTT gameplay to this... I suppose 'action' style? is lying through their teeth: if you 'liked' this 'RTS' style, you are wrong. Your opinion, tastes, and attitude are wrong. And more importantly, you are lying: the gameplay of the RTS/RTT style is so poor, somehow being WORSE than Tom Clancey's Endwar (by far the WORST competently (read: no bugs) made RTS ever) that you cannot like it in favor of something else. No, I reject the notion from anyone that this is based on a gameplay preference, this is based SOLELY on power projection and the fact this does in a LARGE ways reign it in. Oh you can still do massive damage in this rework, but much less readily so. It will take work, a lot of work, something the old system did not (setting up cross drops is not some mystical science: if you've played even 1 RTT with tactical assets it is no different from setting up converging strafing runs against heavy tanks, maybe easier since things like land geometry/enfilade/defilade do not factor in at sea). I foresee the slog from Tier 4 to be both worse and better under the rework, as essentially landing single torp hits or relying on paltry rocket hits to be taxing on some people's patience who expect to put up big, 12k, 20k strikes. And that's the reason many players will hate it: it's going to take away A LOT of potential heavy damage. And that's why it's similar to the IJN DD's: CV's were broken on release, and now fixed, in a manner of speaking at least, and as such, people will pine for the days when they could reliably delete cruisers and DD's with a 3 way cross drop that simply isn't possible anymore. So taking my points 1 by 1: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified This is what actually motivated me to download the PTS this time as I wanted to see if this was really a problem or not. It is not. In fact, I find that they might actually be short changing some CV's potential loadouts. Let me explain: So I made a point for several matches to try to exhaust my planes as efficiently as possible. So with the Lexington, I would fly up my bombers first, go directly to the enemy (no boost) and ensure they all got shot down as fast as possible (driving towards flack bursts as much as I could). I found, consistently across several maps, it took ~1:30 to go from my CV to the last plane shot down. With upgrades, it takes 68 seconds for TB's to reload a plane, and 60 seconds for DB's. You get 9 planes per squad and 18 (with upgrade) on the deck ready to go to start. So that means that first 1:30, you reload 1.5 planes, and have lost 9. You immediately launch the second wave, you go 1:30 minutes, reload another 1.5 planes for a total of 3 now on the deck and have lost 18. It will now take 6:40 to reload the next 6 aircraft to fill out a squad of 9 again, then 9:00 for the next 8 to reload after those are destroyed, and the cycle repeats. That means over the course of a single match, you can launch a total of ~36 planes, but in reality, it's less, as the last 9 cannot be used in time to be meaningful (launching at the 19:35 mark in game and thus don't have the 1:30 to reach the enemy). So that means, in total, the TB possible to EVER launch from a Lexington is 27. The DB's have a similar situation, with the key difference being it takes 6:00 to refill the 9 squadron the first time, and then 8:00 after that, with JUST enough time to get the final sortie in for a total of 36 possible DB to ever be launched. Now the Lexington could carry, with permanent deck park, 90 aircraft max, with most sources using 70 for most operations. Total possible, for the ENTIRE 20 minute match, is 63 DB and TB. Leaving between 7 fighter (which is what the Rocket planes are after all) and 27, depending on how you view deck parks. This is a TOTALLY relealistic setup and thus the 'unlimited' planes thing is meaningless: You cannot launch ENOUGH planes in a 20 minute match greater than what was possible for one of these CV's to carry in reality (For tiers >6). The Midway is even more laughable, coming in about 80% of total possible launches per 20 minute match to what they actually had the carrying capacity for. And all this is true for the IJN Carriers at T8+ as well. So can we put this issue to bed? Because the reality does not out the actual problem with the unlimited planes given HOW WGing' has chosen to handle multiple squadrons. The reality is, a person even making the SEMBLENCE to keep some planes alive per run (or you know, actually do damage and thus have SOME planes to send back) could never exhaust a CV's plane supply, and trying to harp on THIS as a problem with the CV rework (when there are ACTUAL problems I'll go into later) is disingenuous at best, bold faced lying at worst. 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed As I said above, I can see why people who were farming HUGE damage counts will hate this new style, and likewise that they will NEVER accept this downgrade. I can also say it was 100% needed; CV's were neither fun to play against (important) nor that fun to play extended. And I choose those words carefully: fun to play. Oh you may enjoy the knowledge of doing HUGE damage or deleting enemy ships, but the ACTUAL interaction was very boring; and that's a reasonably objective appraisal. Game's are an interactive media, and the basicmost measure of interactivity is player control input: i.e. clicks/keystrokes. And the RTS/RTT CV Gameplay is VERY low impact in number of clicks/keystrokes at any given time. That's not true with the rework at all: it's VERY interactive heavy. Again, I'm talking purely mechanics, not if it's FUN to watch or do, just that you are DOING a lot at any given point of time. Even BB's, which spend the majority of their time waiting for guns to reload, are always doing something; be it looking for new targets, maneuvering, map awareness, paying attention to angles, ect. CV's had long stretches of nothing and this rework largely eliminates that downtime. That's important and needed. Also, this is probably the way they SHOULD have been from the start. And that's where the friction will come. But it is probably the only way you could make CV play viable in what amounts to a gunnery duel game. Really the only place RTT/RTS style gameplay would have worked would have been in a segregated CV only mode (which I still think should be, overall, what they do, as it would be both more interesting and easier to balance and WAY more indicative of what CV's role in naval battles were). But failing that, this is a good way to emphasis the 'zerg rush' attitude that CV warfare held and I am looking forward to both ends of it's combat. 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be I am increasingly of the mind that many players who frequent these forums actually hate WoWs, and I get it; it's not the version of this game I wanted either. I wanted basically Battlestations Pacific but a little bit more fluid and realistic, but while also Single Player and that is NOT this game. I get it, but I wouldn't say I HATE this interpretation of the concept. But at some point, it starts to sink in a great many of you do, DO hate this game because it seems if ANY change happens to your class of choice, either directly or indirectly, you scream bloody murder. Baltimore was my favorite ship in the game when it was at T9 and complimented my playstyle perfectly. But it is a SHELL of what it once was and I refuse to play it anymore. I didn't scream murder over it, nor quit in a huff. I moved on to another ship that fits my style. Why on earth many of you cannot comprehend and own this idea is beyond me. If CV's new playstyle isn't your thing? Okay, I get that. I don't agree with it, but no one says you have to LIKE a change. But to decide the entire game is not worth it on that basis is just plain wrong as, as mentioned, that gameplay was the WORST example of it's type *ever* made. So if you really are only in it for the RTT/RTS gameplay, games like Age of Empires or Sins of the Solar Empire or World in Conflict will blow your [edited]mind in just how much better they are, but, again, I suspect those voicing objections along those lines are outright LYING. 4) It is not flawless So overall I think it's really good. It's way more interesting than the old CV gameplay was, and I suspect will be MUCH easier to balance (although how they will balance premiums in a way that doesn't make them WORTHLESS or overpowered or skin jobs, is beyond me). But there are a few key things I do not like at all and would like Wargaming to address. 1) Which planes are used. This is the big one. So the stats for these planes are BASICALLY 100% made up insofar as balance is concerned. Realistically, the F4U wasn't better than the F6F, just different. It definitely wasn't more SURVIVABLE that's for sure. So in picking which planes go on which ship you guys have 100% leway to make it up as you go... so why have you relegate important/interesting planes to worthless positions? The TBF Avenger, F6F, and most glaringly SBD Dauntless are all relegated to second class status by being the intro, T7 planes on the Lexington, meaning no one will ever play them once they unlock the upgrades. And for some reason, you left them off the Ranger and instead went with the Pre-war models. Now forgetting the historical dissonance that the Lexington never carried Helldivers or F4U's (since the problems associated with Carrier landings were not solved before the Lexington was sunk), you are basically ignoring and removing the most interesting planes from the airwar. You chose to make them T7, and as mentioned, the stats are largely made up (WHICH IS FINE), so why not let them be the T8 and put the endwar planes on the T10? Again, since the stats are made up, it's about the appearance, and not being able to fly these planes is a big loss. And I cannot help but expect that the T8 Premiums WILL have these planes, but with some gimmick that makes a T7 plane usable on a T8 hull. And to me, that is JUST not a good way to use the assets. If I were you, I'd take a good look at what planes people would WANT to fly, and make sure those are the top models at appropriate tiers. 2) New Captain Skills suck Too many of them are centered on increasing/increasing efficiency of the boost. Personally, I don't care much for the boost. It's much like the 33 knots on the Iowa, it's just fast enough to get you into more trouble than it gets you out of. I'd much rather have skills that effect survivability, maneuverability, and redicle size/angle. But iirc, 4? or 5 of the Captain skills all involve the speed of the plane and that's just not what's important here. Also, give AFT the range increase to AA again. Oh AA is much more effective than I think a great many people thing it is from the first PTS, but it's reasonably predictable now and tbh I cannot see a reason for any non-DD to take AFT at this point. 3) I get why you don't want players to control the CV, but you gotta give them a break So I get the REAL reason you don't want players to have to switch between the CV and planes: it's not multitasking (you could just have the planes orbit in place when you switch back to control), but that you DO want it to be helpless TO a degree when someone manages to get close. And I agree, to a degree, that it should be. CV's were not surface combatants after all, not really. But that said, they should at least have SOME recourse when ambushed and I think the fairest thing would be to give them baked in MSA levels of dispersion on their secondaries and a 1.5 buff to range over the default for individual gun pieces (so if the range by default is 5.0 km on the secondary when mount on say a CA or BB, it's default is 7.5 on the CV). This way you're secondaries can keep an approaching enemy busy for a bit while you reorient your planes for the appropriate counter to defend yourself. 4) The AA 'zone' is a bad way of implementing that As it stands, I see no reason to ever focus AA on one side of my ship or another. Given that attack runs always draw the squad to the OTHER side of the ship, that means by definition that half my AA every run is taking a debuff. It makes no sense to not just keep it at overall 100%. As such, and I see what you're going for with it and appreciate it, I think you should alter how that works. Make it only take 5 seconds to switch sides, but AA guns are silent while this is going on. This way there's motivation to try to follow the run of attacks but a penalty for doing so if timed poorly (especially for putting up flack curtains). Other than that, I love the new AA and especially how it looks although I think it's time to animate secondary DP guns firing AA. Take the month to do it, as while a minor detail, it's very immersion breaking at the moment.
  6. If they are going to increase the danger for the battleships they should start upgrading the battleships, when a torpedo penetrates a Tier 8 ship onwards the Germans and Japanese the ship is flooded too, these ships were designed by sessions to prevent the water will pass to the other sessions of the ship, we see that the German battleships in the game shows a shield even very little, when the bismarck and tirpitz, had double hull to also prevent the ship from being completely penetrated and many of the most torpedoes that penetrated the helmet of the bismarck they stopped in the sessions anti torpedo, these boats what they lost was speed to advance, also in the game the battleships caught fire too easy, most of the projectiles HE in the second world war did not explode and much less had the ability to harm a battleship like these, that's why huge bombs were used from aircraft, also these missiles Losivos, not detonated, including that some of the torpedoes that hit the anti-torpedo belt of bismack only made an explosion without affecting the armor and fix those radars of the battleships, these ships could detect any destroyer easily, what could not be shoot comfortably with the main ones when they were very close.
  7. 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.
  8. So any word what's going on with the premium CVs? Are they going to offer a dabloon refund like they did with smoke cruisers or are you just going to hope you like the post rework version?
  9. 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
  10. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION