Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'anti aircraft'.

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 2 results

  1. Given the nature of the current state of the aircraft carrier and anti-aircraft rework, Texas has basically lost its one gimmick which prevented it from being an utterly mediocre ship (which it is in every other respect). With the decrease in max range of all anti-aircraft, Texas now has a maximum range of 3.5 kilometers, down from 5 kilometers. This was already only considered really useful for self-defense, as it lacked the bonuses available from manual fire control for anti-aircraft guns, and the longer base range of said guns. However, Texas was simply in possession of so much raw damage, that this range was sufficient to protect itself and ships in the immediate proximity from air attack by same tier or +1 CVs. This is no longer the case. The 3.5 kilometer range is simply incapable of dealing sufficient damage to enemy aircraft, prior to them having blown over the focused side of the ship, and and leaving the AA zone. The short range of the 40 mm guns is made even worse by the presence of the large number of 20 mm guns, which although having a high raw DPS value, eat a full two kilometers of the 3.5 km reach on the 40 mm guns. With a fully specialized 19 point commander, the module, and flag, my Texas shot down a whopping four aircraft from an enemy Ranger, over a period in which at least nine strikes were oriented at my own ship. Total aircraft damage struggled to just break 11,000, even with active zone swapping and frantic maneuvering to keep the aircraft within range of my T-Rex arms for more than a few seconds at a time. Several ships which attempted to crowd around me (a Marblehead and an Aoba) were picked apart at will. Neither ship possessed the ability to deal meaningful damage to the enemy aircraft, especially the poor Marblehead who, atop having zero access to DFAA, simply has such bad anti-aircraft performance that it essentially does not exist. He shot down zero planes. The Aoba fared slightly better, splashing three. It was not a swift death, to be certain, but we were virtually powerless to stop the attacking aircraft prior to them having done their damage to us. Without fail, another squadron would arrive a few seconds later, and lay into us without reprieve. It was death by a thousand cuts, and for all of our flailing, we were incapable of preventing it. This is something that would not have happened against a tier VI carrier prior to this patch. Texas was far from a no fly zone before, but it was a prickly target which could be assured to deal heavy damage to attacking squadrons should they try their luck. This is simply no longer the case. The carrier player would need to intentionally fly back and forth on the focused side of this ship several times, in order to guarantee losing his squadron. Swift rocket and torpedo strikes leave the zone so quickly that they don’t take meaningful damage for the most part. Aside from the fame of her name, Texas was sold on one gimmick: her anti-aircraft firepower. This gimmick no longer exists in the current state of the game, and the fundamental nature of this ship, a premium ship which was purchased with money in one form or the other, has been altered. The CV players were offered a full refund in experience, dubloons, and credits, as compensation for those who did not enjoy the new mechanics. Texas is equally reliant on a mechanic which changed every bit as much as carrier control, yet no refund or rebalance has been offered. To be certain, I am not claiming the aircraft carriers are overpowered in the current state. Far from it. The simple fact is that AA as a mechanic is now extremely random in its effect. Sometimes it works brilliantly, other times it does nothing. There is no randomness in Texas’s current state, the anti-aircraft simply fails to function as advertised. As I see it, there are three options: 1. Balance/alter the current anti-aircraft mechanic functions, to the point where Texas is brought up to roughly the same level in which it existed prior to the patch. This would most likely be done by proxy, over a period of several months where the ship would simply remain screwed. Not good. 2. Balance/alter Texas herself, by increasing the range of her anti-aircraft guns in particular, and decreasing the amount of time needed to refocus the guns to each side. As Texas possesses no heavy anti-aircraft guns, this seems the most logical in my mind. 3. Offer a refund for the ship and her special camouflage, in the same method in which WG has offered refunds for the premium aircraft carriers. Give a period of time where the player has the choice to claim the dubloons equivalent of the ship and whichever special camouflage he/she has purchased. Extend this offer until a later point, by which time WG believes it will have balanced anti-aircraft and carriers to a satisfactory level. I believe this cutoff is 8.1 for the carriers. Seems fair to me. Thats it really. Other ships like Atlanta have retained their other defining features, such as radar or a huge number of guns for HE spamming at a distance (and unlimited AADF). In my opinion, Texas currently suffers the worst hit to it’s main selling point (apart from it’s name), which is why I wrote this. I don’t hate the carrier rework, or the AA rework on a whole. In fact I find them rather hilarious and the randomness has added some interesting flavor to an otherwise boring game. Love it or hate it, this is my opinion on the matter.
  2. 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