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
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 31 results

  1. Hello all, I have been playing WoWs on (and very off) for the last 4 or 5 years. I have a T10 american CV whose name I can't remember. Aircraft carriers were my favorite part of the game before the re-work (I preferred RTS style), and coming back post-rework is daunting & stressful. The main problem I'm having is when I go to attack a ship: Sometimes my planes get shredded, sometimes they do not. It seems to depend heavily on the ship. This is a major problem because I rarely play now as much as I used to, I don't even know a quarter the ships in the game anymore. When I logon to my CV to play a game, its a total crapshoot when I go to hit a ship whether it will wreck me or not. Often its a ship whose name I haven't heard of, or if I have, I have no idea if it has strong AA or not. I don't play this game enough to memorize every t8-t10 ship in the game, nor would I want to if I did... and in my opinion, nor should I have to. It isn't fun. There needs to be a way to tell CV players the AA level of a ship they are about to engage; without that knowledge, playing carriers is a practice in futility for hyper-casual players such as myself. I always quit after 1 game in frustration and go back to my shimikaze. I spent (probably) over a 100 hours grinding out to that T10 carrier and now I can't even play it. I am pretty sad. I've installed Aslains and tried to modify the HUD to show AA ratings but even though its so compact and limited. Every time I return to play there's a plethora of new ships I've never heard of. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
  2. Hello there! Welcome to a post where I decide to stop doing single ADLAs on ships and instead try my best at guessing what a tech-tree line might look like. Here's my proposal for the Italian Aircraft Carriers tech-tree line. Italian Regia Marina Aircraft Carriers Foreword The Italian Regia Marina was hampered in its efforts to have aircraft carriers and operational naval aviation due to the interference and political machinations of the Regia Aeronautica. The Regia Marina was well aware of the power of aircraft carriers and had proposed their construction and adoption into the fleet from the early 1910s and kept fighting for their construction until the end of the Second World War. Mussolini and other political figures ensured that the Regia Marina never got their wish for aircraft carriers, but the detailed plans that the Navy created in each iteration show how the tactical doctrine and requirements of Italian aircraft carriers developed. It is from those designs that this line stems, and while ships might have some modifications where weaponry is concerned, all designs presented here were designs that the Regia Marina considered for service until they were struck down in political maneuvers. I have used the airplanes proposed for naval duty when possible, but in many cases I “navalised” aircraft used by the Regia Aeronautica. Traits The Italian aircraft carriers have planes that for the most part have been developed from fighter planes, so they all have the uniform 40kts boost speed and can sustain the boost for a longer period of time. Additionally, they all have better than average maneuverability and deploy an additional fighter in the squadrons summoned by fighter consumables. The Italian plane squadrons all have some unique characteristics that change the way that they need to be played in order to attain maximum efficiency. Italian rocket strike craft tend to carry fewer rockets than comparable aircraft from other nations, and the rockets themselves do not have very good characteristics; this however is somewhat counteracted by the good durability of the planes, their great maneuverability and the increased squadron and attack flight sizes. Italian dive bombers have the previously mentioned improved boost and maneuverability, however they are slower than most other dive bombers. A key characteristic of Italian dive bombers is the choice between two weapon types; they can either carry a few large HE bombs or a larger amount of smaller SAP bombs. This means that you may choose the potential for higher alpha strike of the SAP bombs over the possible damage over time of HE bombs, however do be aware that SAP bombs can fail to penetrate and bounce just like AP shells so you’ll have to be even more careful while aiming. Lastly, the Italian torpedo bombers feature the same improved boost and maneuverability as previously mentioned, but they also gain improved stability when aiming during the attack run which means you will be able to do more aggressive maneuvers while aiming without throwing off your aim too much. Additionally, the Italian torpedo bombers carry a rather decent torpedo with good damage and speed but a poor range which means that aiming properly and dropping torpedoes as close as possible to enemies will be crucial. Additional fighter consumable & additional fighter in fighter squadrons Slower than average plane replacement Below-average Rocket Strike Aircraft Average speed (Slower than USN & faster than RN) Good durability (Above average hitpoint pool) Great maneuverability Weak & not very numerous rockets Increased squadron & attack flight size Good dive bombers Improved boost speed & duration (40kts vs 35kts) Slow (only slightly faster than USN) Decent durability Choice of bombs: Medium SAP bombs Larger but fewer HE bombs Improved maneuverability Decent torpedo bombers Average speed (Slower than IJN & equal to RN) Improved boost speed & duration (40kts vs 35kts) Improved maneuverability Improved stability when aiming on attack run Decent torpedoes (good damage & speed, poor range) Warships Tier CV Prem. 1 2 3 4 Nibbio 5 6 Falco Sparviero 1942 7 8 Aquila 9 10 Avvoltoio Tech-Tree Aircraft Carriers Nibbio class Aircraft Carrier (T4) A design to convert the half-built hull of the Francesco Caracciolo to the Italian Regia Marina’s first aircraft carrier. Due to interference from the Regia Aeronautica and budgetary constraints, she was never converted and instead was scrapped. Survivability Displacement: ~22,000t standard; ~26,500t full (32,500hp standard; 34,800hp full) Armour: 180mm belt, 50-24mm deck Flight Group Flight group: ~30 Aircraft Attack Aircraft: IMAM Ro.37 Speed: 112kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1380 Payload: 2x 5-inch FFAR (1900 damage, 7% fire, 27mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 4 (8) Aircraft restoration time: 45 seconds Torpedo Bombers: Fiat B.R.1 Speed: 99kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1450 Payload: 1x 45cm F200/450 Torpedo (5500 damage, 45% flood, 3km @40kts) Attack flight (Squad size): 2 (6) Aircraft restoration time: 60 seconds Dive Bombers: IMAM Ro.1 Speed: 98kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1540 Payload: 4x 24kg G.P H.E. bomb (3100 damage, 17% fire, 18.5mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 2 (6) Aircraft restoration time: 55 seconds Weaponry AA Battery: 4x2 37mm/54 Breda M1932 autocannons (dmg = 102dps @3.5km 100% acc), 4x2 20mm/65 Breda M1935 guns (dmg = 32dps @2km 95% acc) Mobility Speed: 28kts - 85,000hp Size: 213m long, 31m wide, 7.5m deep Consumables Standard Damage Control Party Improved Fighter Squadron Standard Squadron Consumables Notes Original AA: 8x2 13.2mm/76 Breda 1931 (dmg = 126dps @1.5km 95% acc) AA guns Caracciolo Pg 582 carrier conversion Details can be found in "La Nave Virtuale" by Enrico Cernuschi published in Storia Militare but this picture is from "Le Navi da Battaglia Classe Caracciolo" by Antonio Mascolo From Sappino’s book: Pg 582: Flight deck: 185x25m https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/older-italian-ships.1805/#post-15309 Analysis The Nibbio has several characteristics which make him unique among the aircraft carriers at T4. Ship-wise, it is by far the largest, most heavily armoured of the aircraft carriers as befits its origins as a super-dreadnought battleship. The Nibbio has more hitpoints and a higher speed than any other aircraft carrier as well, but it pays for this by having a rather poor concealment, having no secondary weapons and a rather average anti-aircraft suite. The Nibbio has the added benefit that its fighter consumable summons a 5-plane squadron instead of a 4-plane squadron to protect itself, offering it a slight defensive boost as well against enemy aviation. It’s the tankiest aircraft carrier at its tier, but as any aircraft carrier knows, the moment you get spotted means that your time on the battlefield is coming to an end. Aircraft-wise, your bombers offer a middle-of-the-road performance as they carry 4 bombs each which means that you’ll have an easier time causing damage even if it isn’t devastating; your fighters are decently fast and have a large attack flight which means that it losing a plane or two will not be quite as bad although the planes do not carry as many rockets; and your torpedo bombers have all around decent characteristics to deliver the torpedo with some reliability. The planes may not be as different from other lines, but at tier 4 it is better to be simple than to overcomplicate, and the Nibbio will be a good training aircraft carrier for the upper tiers. Falco class Aircraft Carrier (T6) A design proposed by Filippo Bonfiglietti, it was meant to provide the Italian Regia Marina with attack and scouting capabilities. It was a very modern design that incorporated many of the best design practices from foreign navies. Budgetary constraints and political interference meant it was never built. Survivability Displacement: 15,240t standard; 17,540t full (40,050hp standard; 41,650hp full) Armour: 60mm belt, 50mm avgas tanks, 20mm hangar sides, 35mm flight deck, 40mm weather deck, 60mm armoured deck, 30mm over magazines and steering gear Flight Group Flight group: 40 Aircraft (18 Fighters, 12 Recon, 6-12 Attack Planes) Attack Aircraft: Macchi C.200 Saetta Speed: 145kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1550 Payload: 4x 5-inch FFAR (1900 damage, 7% fire, 27mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 3 (9) Aircraft restoration time: 60 seconds Torpedo Bombers: Caproni Ca.310 Speed: 121kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1620 Payload: 1x 45cm Si200/450 Torpedo (5783 damage, 48% flood, 3km @40kts) Attack flight (Squad size): 2 (8) Aircraft restoration time: 75 seconds Dive Bombers: Breda Ba.65 Speed: 120kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1700 Payload (HE): 2x 100kg G.P H.E. bomb (5150 damage, 29% fire, 30.4mm penetration) Payload (SAP): 3x 104kg S.A.P. bomb (5850 damage, 53mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 2 (8) Aircraft restoration time: 65 seconds Weaponry Secondary Battery: 4x2 152mm/53 M1926 guns, 8x2 100mm/47 OTO M1928 DP guns Reload: 15s (4) / 6s (10) Shell: 44.3kg @950m/s (3850 damage) SAP / 13.8kg @850m/s (1500 damage, 6% fire) HE AA Battery: 8x2 100mm/47 OTO M1928 DP guns (dmg = 84dps @4.6km 100% acc), 6x2 37mm/54 Breda M1932 autocannons (dmg = 153dps @3.5km 100% acc), 4x2 20mm/65 Breda M1935 guns (dmg = 32dps @2km 95% acc), 2x1 20mm/65 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 20dps @2km 95% acc) Mobility Speed: 29kts - 70,000hp Size: 220m long, 30m wide, 6.12m deep Consumables Standard Damage Control Party Improved Fighter Squadron Improved Patrol Fighters Squadron Consumable Notes Original AA: 8x2 100mm/47 OTO M1928 DP guns (24dmg = 84dps @4.6km 100% acc), 4x2 37mm/54 Breda M1932 (30dmg = 105dps @3.5km 100% acc) Base planes: Fiat G.50 bis/A Freccia (attack aircraft) Caproni Ca.111 (torpedo bomber) Fiat CR.32 (dive bomber) Bonfiglietti 1929 design http://www.regiamarina.net/detail_text.asp?nid=56&lid=1 https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=Zpo_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=bonfiglietti+carrier&source=bl&ots=-hLJohHJiz&sig=ACfU3U2D4_lRzlHRVzhN4apaDLkIId7GUg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5zOjQkcroAhUPnq0KHfFIChYQ6AEwDXoECFcQKQ#v=onepage&q=bonfiglietti carrier&f=false http://roetengco.blogspot.com/2012/02/regia-marina-their-aircraft-carriers-of.html Analysis The Falco is the perfect example of Italian aircraft carrier aspirations in the interwar period and is overall a fairly advanced design for its time. The ship itself has a decent anti-aircraft armament, speed and protection, and it has an above average amount of hitpoints. Aircraft-wise, the aircraft follow the normal design expectations for the line, however there are benefits that start to show. The larger attack flights employed by the attack aircraft mean that even though they individually carry fewer rockets than their counterparts, the extra plane starts bringing parity when it comes to overall payload delivery. The torpedo bombers have received an improved torpedo which causes more damage, while the airframe carrying it is relatively sturdy and allows for active maneuvering even while on an attack run. Finally, the dive bombers provide the option of using SAP bombs or HE bombs, with the SAP bombs providing an advantage when striking against heavily-armoured decks and HE bombs providing the possibility for damage over time, module breaking and an easier chance to land hits as there is no autobounce check. The Falco is a decent ship while it carries planes that should be able to adequately perform against all enemies, though they aren’t as specialised as others to more effectively deal with a particular class of ship. The Falco is a good tier 6 aircraft carrier, and the best looking one for sure! Aquila class Aircraft Carrier (T8) A wartime proposal to convert the carrier Roma into an aircraft carrier. She featured two catapults, a propulsion system gathered from two light cruisers, plating on crucial sections and numerous anti-aircraft weapons. Building work was not completed in time during the war. Survivability Displacement: 23,350t standard; 28,800t full (44,600hp standard; 48,450hp full) Armour: 60mm-80mm magazine & fuel tanks Flight Group Flight group: 51 (fixed) - 66 (folded) Aircraft (Reggiane 2001 OR) Attack Aircraft: Reggiane Re.2001 OR Falco II Speed: 151kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1720 Payload: 6x HVAR 127mm (2000 damage, 7% fire, 33mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 3 (9) Aircraft restoration time: 65 seconds Torpedo Bombers: Reggiane Re.2001 OR Falco II Speed: 131kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1790 Payload: 1x 45cm Si200/450 Torpedo (5783 damage, 48% flood, 3km @40kts) Attack flight (Squad size): 3 (9) Aircraft restoration time: 75 seconds Dive Bombers: Reggiane Re.2001 OR Falco II Speed: 126kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1860 Payload (HE): 2x 250kg G.P H.E. bomb (7150 damage, 41% fire, 43.4mm penetration) Payload (SAP): 4x 100kg S.A.P. bomb (5950 damage, 54mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 3 (9) Aircraft restoration time: 70 seconds Weaponry Secondary Battery: 4x2 135mm/45 guns Reload: 8.5-10s (6-7) Shell: 32.7kg @875m/s (1950 damage, 9% fire) HE AA Battery: 4x2 135mm/45 M1942 guns (dmg = 56dps @5km 100% acc), 12x1 65mm/64 M1939 guns (54dmg = 190dps @3.7km 100% acc), 22x6 20mm/70 Breda M1941 guns (88dmg = 308dps @2km 95% acc), 8x1 20mm/65 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 78dps @2km 95% acc) Mobility Speed: 30kts - 151,000hp Size: 232.5m long, 30.1m wide, 7.31m deep Consumables Standard Damage Control Party Improved Fighter Squadron Improved Patrol Fighters Squadron Consumable Notes Original AA: 12x1 65mm/64 M1939 guns (54dmg = 190dps @3.7km 100% acc), 22x6 20mm/70 Breda M1941 guns (88dmg = 308dps @2km 95% acc) Original Secondary Battery: 8x1 135mm/45 guns Base planes: Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I (attack aircraft) Caproni Ca.314 (torpedo bomber) Breda Ba.201 (dive bomber) Analysis The Aquila was the closest the Regia Marina got to having its own aircraft carrier in during the war, with it being quite far along when the Armistice was signed. The Aquila has rather poor anti-aircraft capabilities as it only has a better sustained damage per second than the Shokaku, it is slower, lighter and carries thinner plating than other aircraft carriers as well, but it does have rather good concealment. Thankfully, concealment is one of the most important figures for aircraft carriers, and planes are the most important one. The Aquila’s planes are where the Italian aircraft carrier line starts to shine. The attack aircraft have a very good combination of above average speed, good durability and maneuverability along with an improved payload over the previous tier. They carry a good amount of rockets which now have 33mm penetration which means that they can deal damage to any enemy target if you aim at their thinner plating or superstructures. The torpedo bombers are not the best individually, but they combine average speed with decent durability, good maneuverability even while preparing to drop ordnance and a 3-plane attack flight which means that they will not suffer too much when trying to deal damage reliably to enemy ships. The dive bombers are probably the weakest of the three aircraft types, being slower than average and not carrying as much ordnance as other squadrons as they only get the choice between 2 large HE bombs and 4 medium SAP bombs. Their saving grace however is the fact that both of the ordnance choices have good penetration and thus should have an easy time penetrating the decks of almost every enemy they face, and with the improved maneuverability should reliably land their bombs on target. The Aquila is not the most impressive aircraft carrier, but it is more than capable of standing up against other tier 8 carriers in a match and making its presence felt. Avvoltoio class Aircraft Carrier (T10) This design proposed the conversion of the incomplete battleship Impero from the Vittorio Veneto class into a fleet carrier. It featured several advanced features such as a long-range rocket launching system, a ski-slope catapult ramp, new dual-purpose weapons and a bulbous bow. Design was incomplete at the time of the Armistice. Survivability Displacement: 45,000t standard; ~52,000t full (59,950hp standard; 64,900hp full) Armour: 220mm (Reduced Vittorio Veneto belt), 162-90mm deck Flight Group Flight group: 70 (fixed) Aircraft (Reggiane Re.2006 Sagittario 2) Attack Aircraft: Reggiane Re.2006 Sagittario 2 Speed: 168kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1890 Payload: 8x HVAR 127mm (2000 damage, 7% fire, 33mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 4 (12) Aircraft restoration time: 70 seconds Torpedo Bombers: Reggiane Re.2006 Sagittario 2 Speed: 145kts (40kts boost) Durability: 1960 Payload: 1x 45cm Si200/450 Torpedo (5783 damage, 48% flood, 3km @40kts) Attack flight (Squad size): 4 (12) Aircraft restoration time: 80 seconds Dive Bombers: Reggiane Re.2006 Sagittario 2 Speed: 140kts (40kts boost) Durability: 2020 Payload (HE): 2x 500kg G.P H.E. bomb (9100 damage, 53% fire, 54mm penetration) Payload (SAP): 6x 100kg S.A.P. bomb (5950 damage, 54mm penetration) Attack flight (Squad size): 4 (12) Aircraft restoration time: 75 seconds Weaponry Secondary Battery: 6x2 120mm/50 M1939 DP guns Reload: 5s (12) Shell: 32.15kg @800m/s (damage) AA Battery: 6x2 120mm/50 M1939 DP guns (?dmg = 150dps @5.2km 100% acc), 2x2 64mm/64 Breda 1939 AA guns (dmg = 45dps @3.7km 100% acc), 14x2 37mm/54 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 357dps @3.5km 100% acc), 3x2 20mm/65 Breda M1935 guns (dmg = 25dps @2km 95% acc), 8x1 20mm/65 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 78dps @2km 95% acc) Mobility Speed: 30kts - 130,000hp Size: 240m long, 42.7m wide, 10.4m deep Consumables Standard Damage Control Party Improved Fighter Squadron Improved Patrol Fighters Squadron Notes Original AA: 6x1 120mm/50 M1939 DP guns (?dmg = 105dps @5.2km 100% acc), 12x2 37mm/54 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 306dps @3.5km 100% acc), 22x1 20mm/65 Breda M1938 guns (dmg = 216dps @2km 95% acc) Base planes: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario (attack aircraft) Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario (torpedo bomber) Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario (dive bomber) Impero’s CV aircraft conversion https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/25247-fan-made-italian-tech-tree/?page=3#entry837056 https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/rn-impero-battleship-to-aircraft-carrier-conversion-study-1200-model/ Analysis The Avvoltoio is the first fleet carrier that the Italian Regia Marina wanted to build using the incomplete Impero’s hull as a basis. It featured revolutionary features for an aircraft carrier that would become commonplace for aircraft carriers after the war, and while those features are hard to show in-game, the Avvoltoio would’ve been an excellent aircraft carrier. As implemented in the game, the Avvoltoio still shows part of its origins as a battleship with its 220mm armoured belt and extensive armoured deck which makes it probably the most heavily armoured aircraft carrier at tier 10, it also has one of the best concealments as it is rather low on the water when compared to some of its tiermates. The downside to such origins however is the relatively poor speed of 30kts which is the worst at its tier (though still acceptable) and the relatively average anti-aircraft capabilities, which while excellent for an Italian ship, still lag far behind some of its tiermates. Plane-wise, the Avvoltoio carries the most advanced aircraft developed by Italy during the war and their performance is suitably good. The attack aircraft now pack a punch by virtue of carrying 8 rockets a piece, and their unique attack-flight size of 4 means that there will always be a lot of rockets being delivered to enemies, even through some heavy AA. They are also quite fast and durable, which will ensure that they spend fewer time under threat of enemy AA batteries and that they’ll be able to resist quite a bit of damage before being shot down. The torpedo bombers also benefit from the larger attack flight size which means that although they each drop a single torpedo they can still cause considerable damage onto enemies and that should be helped by the improved maneuverability and improved aiming. Their speed, improved boost and durability should ensure that they can drop ordnance even onto relatively protected enemies. Lastly, the dive bombers can now shine with their good speed, durability, maneuverability and boost all helping the bombers through enemy AA fire to then drop ordnance on enemies. The choice of ordnance becomes more poignant now as there will be a lot more enemy ships that have decks capable of bouncing SAP bombs if they’re not properly aimed, while the HE bombs do not have such an issue, so it becomes a case of choosing between reliable HE damage with a good chance to cause damage over time or trying your luck at using SAP bombs and dropping a barrage of them on enemies hoping on a big alpha strike. The increased attack flight size will help make sure that whatever choice you make, a lot of ordnance is dropped onto enemies. Overall, the Avvoltoio is the culmination of Italian aircraft carrier design, having a series of navalized and modified fighters in all roles, giving it the chance to defeat enemies through large attack flight strikes and should be a rather interesting tier 10 aircraft carrier.
  3. I just bought the Erich Löwenhardt and I liked it, I can say that it is a very decent CV, despite having bad torpedoes, very slow, very little damage and with almost 0 possibility of flooding, but its bombs are good, as are its rockets, something else Negative of this good CV is that their squadrons are very small and the enemy AA erase your planes, you can only hopefully do 1 attack per squadron. but I liked the rest a lot, I think her secondary suffered the same rank nerf as happened to Graff Zeppelin :( I will gather for later to be able to buy the Ark Royal I want to know how good it is. and this is my best battle . my captain 19 points My best configuration captain, for select point 21
  4. The US Navy has Franklin Delano Roosevelt as their Tier 10 Premium Aircraft carrier. The German Navy will possibly have 2 Tier 10 Premium Aircraft Carriers: M. Immelmann and W. Voss can't find the image =( So how about considering a Tier 10 Premium Aircraft Carrier for Imperial Japanese Navy? IJN Shinano Ship Cost - 31000 Steel because there is no ship cost 31000 Steel Hit Point... If we compare the hit points between Hakuryu(63,100), Midway(67,600), F.D.R.(67,600), Manfred Von Richthofen(65,300) and Audacious(63,400), we can get the lowest HP - 63,100 and highest HP - 67,600. Hit Point for IJN Shinano should be between 64,000 and 66,000. Length 268m Beam 36.3m Draught 10.3m Secondary Armaments 8 Twin 127mm dual-purpose guns Firing Range - 5.2km Rate of Fire - 18 shots/min Reload time - 3.33 seconds HE shell - 100mm HE type 98 (same as Hakuryu) Initial HE shell velocity - 800 - 900m/sec Chance of fire on target caused by HE shell - 6 - 11% AA Defence 35 triple 25mm AA guns Average damage per second - between 110 - 170 Firing Range - between 3 - 5km 12 28 barrelled 120mm AA defence rocket launchers (28 explosions per salvo) Average damage per second - between 290 - 340 Firing Range - between 5 - 8km 40mm Bofors "chi" type 98 Average damage per second - 242 Firing Range - 3.51km (according to Hakuryu, doesn't need to be added) Maneuverability Top speed - 29 - 35 knots Turning radius - 1108m Rudder Shift time - 20 - 24 seconds Concealment(Shinano is smaller than Hakuryu) Detectability by sea Shinano - 12 - 14km Hakuryu - 15.66km Detectability by air Shinano - 8 - 10km Hakuryu - 11.42km Aircraft Compliment Rocket Attack Planes - Ki 84 hei Hayate Rockets in payload - 8 damage - 2000 - 3000 Fire Chance - 11% Cruise speed - 150 - 180 Hit points - 1500 - 2000 Squadron size - 9 planes, 3 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 14 Aircraft Restoration time - 60 - 80 seconds Torpedo planes - B7A2 Ryusei Torpedo in payload - 1 Range - 3 - 4km damage - 3000 - 4000 flooding chance - 43 - 58% Cruising speed - 120 - 140 Hit points - 1700 - 2300 Squadron size - 12 plane, 4 per attack run Number of aircraft on deck - 18 Aircraft Restoration time - 70 - 90 seconds Dive bombers - B6N2 Bombs in payload - 1 Bomb type - armour piercing maximum damage - 7000 - 11000 Cruising speed - 130 - 150 Hit points - 1300 - 1900 Squadron size - 12 planes, 3 or 4 per attack run number of aircraft on deck - 18 Restoration time - 80 - 100 seconds
  5. ***PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING*** Ok looke this poll isn't to ascertain if you liked the old CV style or not but am asking for its general functionality. I understand RTS CV is really OP but I want to gather information about what players prefer because I want to try to make a case to WG about this. RTS wasn't perfect but it was more functional and more playable than whatever we got. I fly planes IRL and its easier than this crap of a play style we now have. I understand its an arcade and not a Simulation anymore but I want the old game I love back. Where a random kitakami would show up in the wild and kill both your team and the enemy because holy crap it was crazy. I want a game that is more simulation-based. I'm open to suggestions on how we can improve CV battles as a whole not revert them to RTS. But I think something needs to be done to fix this nightmare of a game style CVs has become. Even if its the same you control a squadron but they all dive as one but its easier to lose planes. Not Battleships can launch an entire fighter squadron. What WG fails to realize is that this game has become more an action game with life like elements vs a decent game like it used to be. Spotter planes had weapons but were useless in a dogfight but could somewhat do something. Not have 4 planes in the air fighting Kates and Vals like they own the skies. I was in an Atlanta the other day and I got bombed like crazy I remember when cruisers were feared by CVs not another target. Also rockets really? I would have liked it better if we had manned fighters where we could chase and shoot down enemy planes. Remember please take the poll as a way of improvement not bias because one is better than the other
  6. 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.
  7. BB63Hawaii

    Im sick of it.

    Im sick and tired of it. Ive played WOWS for almost 4 years. Rank 1 is always a goal of mine, but tier 10 is just too much. Its the same stuff every season, the [edited] ships that are over powered are always played. A cv turns any good player into an average one. The system demotes players who do the right things but do not get damage. Ive ranked out multiple times, but tier 10 is just crazy now. I dont find it fun anymore, I only like the lower tiers without as much gimmicks. I also think that 1v1 and 3v3 rank is much more realistic for players who dont play in clans. It was a lot of fun with less ships, you have more influence over a game. I get that its a team game but they need to separate clan battles and rank for individual players. I dont care for being burned to death by two smolensks, a haragumo and two thunderers while i worry about slava ap angles from 20k. Then cv detonates. Nightmare fuel. I dont know if anyone else feels the same way, but its just so frustrating. I think im done with rank, too much stress. Time for a change...
  8. Ok, this is going to be long-winded, so to those of you who are willing to, take a deep breath. Carriers now are but a shadow of their former selves. To start, this is somewhat of a good thing, considering RTS carriers could be insane. So, I propose almost bringing back the old system, but with a number of changes that would make CVs more accurate to real life and balanced. For starters, switch back to the top down RTS view, and give carrier commanders control over multiple squadrons: Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers, and Reconnaissance Aircraft. Oh no, where are the fighters? I'll get to that later. So, you have however many of each squadron a carrier gets, and you can give them missions just like in RTS. What's the catch? Well, once you launch them, much like in real life, you cannot change their mission. For instance, if you tell your dive bombers to attack an enemy battleship, they take off, and fly to attack it. If you discover a DD in the mean time, too bad, they are already on their mission. With this new system, manually aiming would not be a thing. If the target is no longer detected, they fly to its last known location and stay for a moment. If they cannot find it, they drop their bombs and return. Reconnaissance aircraft would work in a new way. These, you plot a course for. They cannot attack, but are the only squadron capable of spotting, which significantly reduces a CVs spotting capability. Now, onto fighters. The ship would keep its Combat Air Patrol like in the current version, but when launching a squadron of dive bombers or torpedo bombers, you can choose whether or not to give them a fighter escort. The fighter escort would break off and engage enemy fighters until they ran out of ammunition, at which point they would return to the carrier. Planes would once again be a limited commodity, having a pool of Fighters, Torpedo Bombers, and Dive bombers to pull from. What about the reconnaissance aircraft? Well, historically they were dive bombers, so that is what they would pull from. That's about all I have to cover. To me, I think that would make carriers historically accurate, and less of a pain to other players, knowing that there is a way to get out of harms way if a carrier wants you dead (by not being detected anymore). Anyways, I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea of a rework.
  9. black_hull4

    Very Honorable CV

    Now my favorite thing to do in World of Warships:You see, other CV players? You don't have to stay behind that island. Both of these were in Co-Op, but I did it once with the Hosho in Random. The enemy Hermes saw me coming & tried to get me with torpedo bombers, but there's a reason I never put my CV on autopilot. Neither enemy CV thought to move until it was too late.
  10. 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.
  11. The grind in WoWS is too disappointing to continue. The nerf to the previously "special" aircraft carriers to allow for a more-special KM aircraft carrier line is a primary example of why no one should grind/play this game. When I started WoWS (played off-&-on for 1.5 years), I chose the USN CV line for the special rocket planes. I was down to USN CVs or IJN DDs as my ideal ship to play. I did my research, and chose the USN CV line for the special planes/rocket planes. Skip ahead a year of grinding off-&-on (with Premium, and without), and here I am about to push MIDWAY out of drydock, and I'm pumped about it. LEXINGTON was a challenge, but good preparation for the MIDWAY. The rockets, the Tiny Tims, were tough to master, but I spent a lot of time at it, and I got better. Tiny Tims with the previous reticle (one that was lengthwise down the line of attack of the rocket plane) had a big punch, but was very difficult to pull off. If you missed, it was bad. If you got lucky, and you made the proper prediction about the target ship's turn, the outcome was fun! Then, WoWS rolls out the GERMAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER EVENT. Probably a big issue for WoWS - lots of money and time developing something that didn't exist and probably has low player interest. To salvage this, WoWS decides that KM CVs should have special rocket planes (and DBs). These rocket planes have armor penetration to make them special. The problem: they are not good when attack a low-armor ship beam-on (attacking 90 degrees to the length of the ship), due to over-penetration. This is a significant problem: CVs have a primary role of hunting DDs. What can WoWS do so that the new KM CVs don't always over-penetrate on the DDs? Hmmm... the answer... get the DDs to always avoid taking rocket planes in the beam. Get the DDs to always turn away from rocket planes. Now, for DD players, this is a challenge. Some rocket planes do the most damage when attacking down the length of the target ship, and other rocket planes do the most damage when attacking across the beam of the target ship. The solution for WoWS is to nerf the targeting reticle so that all rocket planes have the same targeting reticle. This removes what once made USN CVs special. The reasoning from WoWS for the change is to make it easier for DD players to know what to do when attacked by rocket planes. By making this change to the targeting reticle, all DD drivers know to avoid taking rockets in the beam. (That is, unless it's a KM CV. Those are the special rockets that a DD wants to take in the beam/broadside.) The solution for WoWS is to nerf the previously special USN rocket planes - To eliminate what it was that made the USN CV line worth that grind!!! (What is it WoWS? You change the targeting reticle to simplify tactics for DDs, or to make KM CVs special?) TL;DR. The USN CV line is/was special because of the Tiny Tims & reticle combo. WoWS is in a difficult spot.... how to make money on fantasy KM CVs when USN CVs are good. Nerf. Nerf the rocket targeting reticle on those previously "special" ships, and make the new ship line "special." It is this bait-and-switch, on a game that needs you to pay to grind, is exactly why people should play any thing else. (Regretfully, downloaded STEAM last night. Going to download BATTLE.NET tonight.) Be warned... you'll pay and grind to get that prize you're after only to have it radically altered. Take a look at what happened to SAIPAN in this game. When submarines are introduced, the game will shatter from this form of absurdity.
  12. Opinions are like Aholes. Some are just bigger than others.
  13. 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.
  14. 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. 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. Due to their poor hangar capacity, their squad options would be reduced to 2; rockets and TB or DB, depending on the gimmicks. 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, rockets and TB/DB, 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.
  15. You want to defeat CVs? Sink them with battleship guns and the help of a fellow CV player. 'Nuff said.
  16. anonym_bleJN7gXeLqd

    A message to all CV-haters

    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.
  17. Who thinks the Essex Class Carrier is good for service for smaller navies?
  18. 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/
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. Wargaming, give us the night-capable, all-weather torpedo bomber we deserve!
  22. 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!
  23. 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.
  24. 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?
  25. 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