Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'buff'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 28 results

  1. rafael_azuaje

    Odin Buff

    hello everyone! my post is to talk about odin. * request some improvements like increasing your little HP from 52400 to 57200 base. * improve the speed of the main battery recharge. because the AGIR has the same barrel as the Odin but it recharges in 20 seconds, in 23 seconds. (here is clearly a nerf)
  2. Even after the reload buff this ship has no role or purpose. I despise this thing. And don't give that "oh you're just not playing it right" [edited]. Any ship can made "good" by shear circumstance. It cant brawl (turning radius and vulnerability to torps), it can't BARELY even engage in medium range fire fights because of its gold awful dispersion, and its armor scheme allows 20k salvos even with good angling, turtleback be damned. You combine all of this with a massive bloated ship with mediocre AA and you have the most hated BB in the game. To add insult to injury, all other BBs had their Cits lowered so the relevancy of turtleback armor is now near useless. WG. Buff. This. Ships. Dispersion.
  3. I think and believe that yes, because to tell the truth, the minotaur is becoming increasingly difficult to keep alive throughout a battle, because even if it has smoke, there are already too many ships with Radar of 10 and 12 km, and as well We know the minotaur can be devastated by almost any cruise ship or battleship, and some destroyers can also destroy you extremely quickly with Ap, an example of this would be the rag, so these are my reasons why the mino needs an urgent buff !!. In addition to saying that the Minotaur is almost impossible to use with its radar, you would have to be very lucky or not shoot
  4. I've had the Khaba for a long time, and have always loved it, even though I have only been able to play the current version, and never got to experience the original OP monster that it was. However in the current meta the Khaba is woefully underpowered. I just recently got the Kleber, and it is pretty much just a much better version of the Khaba in every way. You are much faster, much stealthier (even with the concealment nerf), have better range even without AFT, have amazing super AP that can delete cruisers from 10km away, have hilariously fun French F3 torpedoes that can demolish ships caught off guard, have French DD damage saturation, have great handling, and the absurdly strong main battery reload as well, along with great fire chance and shell velocity. What does the Khaba have in comparison? Well you do have better sustained DPM, although the reload booster more than makes up for this. You have the sekrit documents 50mm plating, although you take full BB AP pens to compensate, and can easily be blapped for 15k a salvo if you aren't careful. You do have a heal and more health, which is a significant advantage, although French damage saturation and speed really diminishes this advantage. You have much better turret traverse, but worse firing angles. And if you get in a point blank knife-fight the torpedoes hit very hard and are very stealthy, but are also incredibly slow and have terrible range, so they are still pretty much useless. You have better AA, but it is still trash, and even more so with the CV rework. The Khaba has also been crippled by the nerfs, especially the rudder shift nerf, forcing you to use the rudder mod, so your concealment is horrid at 9.7km, in comparison to the Kleber's bad but still very useable 7.8. You are also much slower and easier to hit, and have worse range even with AFT. The Kbaba has just frankly been power creeped into irrelevancy, which is why you almost never see it used anymore. I can still do very well in it, and still find it fun to play, but now that I have the Kleber it is easy to see how sorry a state the ship is in. The Khaba needs significant buffs to really be competitive again. The first thing I would do is undo the ridiculous rudder shift nerf, so that you can actually run concealment and be actually maneuverable. I would also give it back its 10km torpedoes, so it can actually use them once in a while. These alone would go a long way to making the Khaba competitive again. I would also make it not eat full BB AP pens anymore, and think a slight range increase would also work. It should not go back to its original broken state, but the Khaba really needs some work, as it has been both powercreeped by the Kleber and nerfed too much by WG as well. The Khaba is not an example of Russian bias (looking at you, Kremlin), and it needs some love.
  5. As many players of American Cruisers know, and those who like to shoot at them, Atlanta sucks now. Many players who are in the game now never even saw the days where Atlanta was at the very least decent. Now because of the added lines in the tech tree as well as what is now considered sub-par statistics, the Atlanta is nearly unplayable on its own. I used to love this ship. It was fun and unique to play. It eventually moved to a spot where smart players could dominate, and bad players would be punished. Now everyone who takes this ship into battle is punished. We now have many ships that play (and are inspired by) Atlanta, but due to how the power creep works, are much better even at their respective tiers. Belfast Smolensk Colbert Worcester The Tier VIII and above Japanese gun DD's Even Boise All of this ships have some added quality to them that make them better than Atlanta. Whether it's range, smoke, heal or something else.
  6. rafael_azuaje


    Great analysis! I just want to know why London is premium and Devonshire not. It seems than both are similar, but DEvon is better in many aspects: - Better torps and main battery reload time - Better torps speed and distance - Better antitorp protection - Better main battery range - Better AA - Better DPM - Better HP recovery - Better concealment Better Hydro - better etc.... The london it seems better in speed (+1 knot) Those without significant captain skills and upgrades. (The skill selecte for both ships are Priority taget and Expert Marksman) my Devonshire has Demolition Expert activated.
  7. TheDgamesD

    Roma issues.

    Can we please get a Roma buff? I think i have the knowledge of how the ship performs more than WG does at this point (279 games played in her) and god can she be infuriatingly temperamental with that vertical dispersion, I've missed so many ships below 8km because of it. I do everything right and the ship just goes NOPE NAH YOU. She doesn't have the accuracy to fight at long range where her armor benefits from its layout, but also doesn't have the armor design (Due to the lack of her historical internal angled armor scheme) to try and knife fight to make the guns work. But then the guns just over pen to the point you go back to long range only to miss all but one shell over and over. I get it her guns do more damage than other 15" guns, but that doesn't excuse the accuracy being beaten to a pulp so drastically. The AA being so terrible doesn't make sense as historically when used on Littorio, Vittorio Veneto, and other BB's it worked exceptionally well, but seemingly because of Taranto it has to be bad i guess. For the guns themselves i have many issues with their current state. Her short range makes playing her at distance a headache. not to mention how short it is bothers me given her title of historically having the longest ranged guns of any BB. "The guns were the most powerful weapons of their caliber, comparable to those of much greater caliber. This was largely due to their exceptional muzzle velocity, although this came at a cost. The high velocity and energies in the firing chamber lead to a much faster rate of barrel wear compared to other naval guns, and also resulted in excessive dispersion at long range. Because of this, the final velocity of the Palla rounds was reduced from 870 m/s to 850 m/s. Even with this reduced velocity, the 381/50 had the longest range of any rifles ever mounted on a battleship, the 884.8 kg AP rounds able to reach 42.8 km at the maximum elevation of +36º. This out-ranged the 46cm/45 Type 94 of the Yamato-class by almost 800 meters, and the 16"/50 Mk.7 of the Iowa-class by over 4000 meters. The Armor-Piercing shells had similar penetrative ability against vertical (belt) armor to the two aforementioned weapons, but due to the shallow angle of impact and high velocity of the shells, their performance against horizontal (deck) armor was far inferior." but i get it range had to be balanced. So while her guns can do more damage she still heavily suffers by not being able to over match 32mm of armor when theoretically given the actual characteristics of the rifle and impact of the shell it's reasonable to assume given a realistic breakdown of shell penetration mechanics making her guns effectively over match as if they were 16" guns makes sense. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_381/50_Ansaldo_M1934) Then we have the glaring issue of her ammunition to anyone who remotely knows anything about her guns. They never fired let alone carried any HE ammunition for her 15" guns. Instead she only ever carried AP and SAP historically. Why wasn't this reflected in game? well wargaming at the time used the excuse that there were no plans to ever implement that type of shell. which is obviously now bull given we have an entire line based around them. Three types of shells were developed for the gun, but only two were actually used.(Bagnasco & de Toro, p. 94) AP: The primary armor-piercing round, in Italian these rounds were known as "Palla" (literally; "ball") or "Proiettile Perforante" (Piercing Shot"). They were heavy for their caliber at 884.8 kg (1,951 lb), with a small bursting charge of only 10.16 kg TNT (1.15%). The shells were made of nickel-chrome steel, with a steel cap and a Silumin ballistic cap. The total length was 170 cm (67 in), or 4.46 calibers. SAP: A semi armor-piercing round named "Granata Perforante" ("Piercing Shell") designed for use against lightly armored targets such as cruisers and destroyers. They were lighter than the AP shells with a greater bursting charge (3.57%), and had a significantly lesser penetrative ability. During the war, they showed an unfortunate tendency to fuse later than they had been set to, which lead to over-penetrations of their targets. HE: High explosive shells, these weighed only 774 kilograms (1,710 lb). Although designed and tested for these guns, they were never actually used aboard any of the ships that mounted these guns. I can say now In all my countless games in Roma I have never once found the HE to ever be more of a viable choice to fire than her AP. A mix of its low Damage, fire chance and more makes it practically useless. I can bet you there is not a single person that would complain about removing Roma's HE and replacing it with SAP it's HE is so bad. If anything it would be a massive improvement to the ships performance and would make the dispersion of the shells more justifiable, given the ability to now have a shell that would not only make close quarters combat vs CL as and combat in general vs CA's more balanced, unlike currently where CA's are currently immune to you if they go bow in, an CLs you always overpen due to her High velocity. This would open the door to actually putting thought into what type of Shell you should fire unlike now where using literally anything but the AP even vs DDs is a worse option. In total it would make WG's idea of the playstyle they seem to want her to fit actually work unlike now where she's such a flaming unreliable mess.
  8. It would be great to have another German BB line buff along the lines of fire resistance. German BBs are effective when up close but it's hard to push up with confidence when HE spam is setting you ablaze every 5 seconds. Or maybe this could open up the possibility of a German-exclusive consumable which makes you resistant to HE fire for a period of time. Thoughts?
  9. Heyo, wall of text alert, enjoy the read, I've been wanting to get this off my chest for some time now. There's a WG stream going on as I write this, in which a buff to the German Tier X Cruiser Hindenburg was announced (also includes Roon, same buff btw). The buff in question was stated to be a decrease in reload from 11 seconds to 10.5 seconds. Now, let me start this by saying that I find it good that WG is finally getting around to buffing Hindenburg. The game has not been kind to her ever since her initial nerf where the reload was increased from 10 to 11 seconds. To list a few things that happened, we saw the large wave of buffs to numerous T10s which raised the average performance of the T10 ship, whereas Hindenburg around that time got nerfed. Republique saw more widespread use, for those of you unaware, Republique is one of the most terrifying ships to face in Hindenburg, more on that later. And last one worthy of mention are the Legendary Upgrades, where Hindenburg got a rather mediocre one, again more on that later. So, does this buff to her dpm finally solve the issues she has? In my eyes, no, it doesn't. It doesn't even touch her main issue, and that of the German T8-10 Cruisers. While the dpm was no longer what it used to be, it's still usable. Her AP hits just as hard provided it penetrates, the HE still penetrates the 50mm plating. She was never a dpm machine, more of an opportunist that would seek AP opportunities whenever possible. Same unfortunately also applies to her buff some time ago, where she gained an extra heal charge. A fifth Repair Party charge is a situational tool, only being of any use when four heals have been used and the fifth one gets activated. If this does not happen in a match, then this buff did not show any effect in said match. What is Hindenburg's main issue? It's a feature of her that got powercrept. For those that have been around for some time, the term “Battleship Hindenburg” should not be uncommon. This reputation was gained for a few reasons. For one the turtleback armor which allowed her to pull some ridiculous moves in brawls, and then most importantly the 30mm midship section which allowed her to bounce all AP shells but the ones fired by Yamato, Musashi and 457mm Conqueror (which no one used, that didn't change). So basically, angle well and you can absorb a lot of damage. She still has those 30mm armor. But unfortunately for her there are plenty of ships that have been released since then, and more in the pipeline. Republique being chief among them. Why her? Because she amplifies the problems that Hindenburg has. Hindy's sluggish handling is nothing new, so any Republique with two baguettes to rub together (lewd) will not struggle to land shells, and when they land, they hurt. And there is no way for Hindenburg to counter this threat at all. Angling doesn't work, the concealment is mediocre, so are her dodging abilities. What remains is literally running away and trying to slowly wear the Republique down while 10k damage salvos will return to you every 20something seconds. So in short, 30mm is no longer worth what it once was, and Hindenburg is among the ones that is hit the most by this slow process. What remains is the turtleback, but I shouldn't have to explain how passive the meta especially on NA is. Anyone hoping to capitalize on the turtleback on a regular basis will be left disappointed. Is this an unsolvable issue? No. It can be fixed relatively easily, and WG already set the foundation for this some time ago when announcing possible upcoming changes to the midship plating of cruisers. Exactly the issue Hindenburg has, midship plating. Since then this idea has been surrounded by silence from WG's end, though I spent time on thinking about what possibilities there are for Hindenburg. Since this would be a significant buff to Hindenburg's survivability, it should not surprise that there has to be something in exchange that Hindenburg will sacrifice. For this the most suitable thing would be the third (or fifth if maxed out) Repair Party charge. So while Hindenburg gains the ability to avoid more damage, she pays by being able to recover less damage. A good trade-off. As clarification, these values would only affect the midship section, meaning central upper deck and upper belt. Bow and stern remain untouched. 31mm: An unconventional value for sure. This mainly excludes overmatching from Republique's 431mm guns. 32mm: Widely known value. No overmatch from guns up until 457mm, and German 128mm Secondaries lose the ability to penetrate the armor without the IFHE-skill 33mm: Again unconventional, but this one does a whole lot more. No AP overmatch at all (like Moskva/Stalingrad), Japanese 100mm+IFHE and up to 152mm+IFHE will no longer penetrate the midship section. Heavy Cruisers remain completely unaffected. 34mm: 203mm HE and 155mm+IFHE no longer penetrate the midship. I do not want to say “Option X is the best, because I know for sure”. I don't know for sure what would be the most balanced option. Hence why I listed them all. For one they provide food for thought, and secondly it would be more logical if WG tested Hindenburg with these values to determine which one is the most balanced one. As a final word, or sort of, how does this transfer to Admiral Hipper and Roon? They have similar issues, and Roon is evidently in need of buffs as well while Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen are at least indicated to be rather poor, given the server stats we can access. This concept should thus be applied to them as well, and the question arises how much the midship armor could be. 28mm: Doesn't change anything of significance. No really. 29mm: 413mm and below will bounce, however GK's 420mm shells and anything larger will slice through like a hot knife through butter. Want to make the 420mm guns have some sort of overmatch advantage, this is how you do that. 30mm: Same old, no overmatch from less than 431mm, 180mm HE shatters Different values can be applied for different tiers, obviously. But is an improved miship section desirable? Personally I shall say, most certainly. The beautiful thing about midship sections in that armor range is that they do not affect your gameplay unless you captalize on them. Show broadside and it'll do nothing. Sit nose in and again it won't do you any good. Only when being properly angled and when keeping the surroundings in check will this pay off. In other words, midship armor can be a skill-based option to migitate incoming AP fire. I say very much yes to this. Cheers~
  10. hungariantank123

    Buff the Yahagi Considerably?

    Title says all!
  11. rafael_azuaje

    Gnenova NEED Buff

    Currently, the Italian Genoa cruise is very rubbish, because it is a weak cruise with the worst main battery, it has a battleship recharge, there is no cruise in the game with 20 seconds of recharging. The very high turret turn that makes it impossible to have a Battle against a destroyer. Defense weapon that are torpedoes are very useless in T5, because they are extremely slow and with very low damage. their SAP & AP shells are basically the same both cause appointment, they should replace the AP with the HE. Every T5 cruiser is always equipped with hydroacoustics, it can carry defensive AA or smoke. slightly improve the shielding is too weak the genova need BUFF IN: 1- remove AP shells for HE 2-keep SAP shells 3-fix reload main Guns 20 secs to 13 secs 4-ADD HYDRO or smoke , all cruiser T5 has hydro. 5- the torpedoes need up damage becuase 9xxx is nothing vs a BB I think that it make better genova. if someone supports me in this ideas well, and if not tell me why?
  12. DooshCanoe_

    Is the Boise good?

    Hello all, it's me again. I've went and bought the Boise, to have an American cruiser to train my Cleveland captain in. I feel like the $40ish dollars I spent was kinda hefty, but I didn't really grumble, because I was told the Boise was a good ship. So, I bought it, and played a few games, and oh boy, was I disappointed. I thought I'd give the ship the benefit of the doubt, because I probably didn't know how to play it correctly. So I played more games, this time trying different play-styles, including the big DD play-style, the "HE spammer behind the island" style, the DD hunter style, the BB support style, and more, and I was still finding that the ship felt weak, and that I was losing quite a few more games in it than any other ship I had in my port. Everyone always says "it's not the ship, it's the driver/captain", but I don't believe that is the case here. Granted, I am by no means a good player, but I don't feel like I suck either. I could be best described as an average player. When I was playing the Boise in these games I noticed so many different things about the ship that just felt like they were causing me to lose fights that a cruiser shouldn't be losing. I'll list below what I feel like the ship struggles with. - The amount of damage that the guns do. The HE feels underwhelming, especially when I am firing at other cruisers and battleships. It does fine against DD's. The AP on american 152's is naturally not that great, and I accept that; however, in my experience, they just feel worse than the standard 152's. I would get into close range knife-fights with other cruisers at about 5km and less, and even with a full-broadside, I get shatters, overpens, and the occasional pen, usually causing about 1-2k damage with a salvo. Against another cruiser, broadside on, at less than 5km. And yes, I do know where to aim on cruisers to score max damage. I don't know if RNG is screwing me over, or if I'm doing it wrong, or what, but at 5km or less, I'd think that 15 guns would be doing more than that. - The gun range. Granted, it does have 15 guns, but 13.6km for a max range, it just isn't good, and it causes you to have to play a bit too aggressively. I'll touch on this in a second with the ships' overall survivability. - The maneuverability of the ship. Granted, it isn't a destroyer and it isn't meant to have a destroyer's maneuverability, but it feels a bit sluggish to turn, and it feels like it takes a huge distance for the ship to turn 360 degrees. This isn't as much of a gripe as the others, as this one may just be me not turning and changing speed like I should be doing regularly. - The survivability. Oh lord, this is the part of the ship that feels ridiculous to me. Because of the limited range on the ship, you have to get dangerous;y close to the enemy ships in order to do damage, and when you do that, you have to expose some part of your ship, unless you're behind an island. This ship, simply cannot take any hits, whatsoever. HE? it hurts, and this thing burns like dried driftwood. AP? it hurts even worse, no matter the angle it strikes at. Even DD's can shoot this ship with HE, and this thing simply melts when it eats those incoming shells. With 33k health, this thing vaporizes quicker than other cruisers at tier 7, and last time I checked, cruisers aren't meant to sit behind islands and spam HE the entire game. They're supposed to get involved, at some point. This ship, when it gets involved, in my experience, it just melts, bow-on or broadside to the enemy. Now that all that is out of the way, I need some help from the rest of y'all in the community. I need y'all to tell me if I'm just being stupid, not playing it right, and I need to git gud n00b, or if my gripes about the ship are at least, somewhat understandable? Because I don't want to say this ship is a waste of money, but I just can't seem to have a single fun game in it, much less have a good game in it, and every time I see that losing screen or my ship sinking, I can't help but to think about the $40ish dollars I spent on it. PLEASE HELP! Tell me if I am crazy, or if I'm not crazy and I have good points!! -ThePwnageMachine
  13. rafael_azuaje

    omaha class armored buff

    hello I have the omaha and his brothers, but they have a very ugly 10mm armor, which makes it bulnerable to any projectile and bursts the ship mercilessly. It needs to be revised and its armor increased a little. so he can be conpetitive in battles. should increase it to 16mm
  14. I was reading through the patch notes for update 0.8.6, and in the section which discusses buffs and nerfs for individual ships, I found this little nugget: British cruiser Emerald The armor thickness of the citadel deck has been increased from 25 to 40 mm. By increasing the thickness of the deck armor, we’ve added more protection for the cruiser's citadel deck against penetrations by attack aircraft rockets, 203 mm HE shells, and no-ricochet penetrations by AP shells. I know some people (@LittleWhiteMouse) who might be happy about this. Still, I don't know if this is a big enough buff to actually make Emerald better. Will this actually help the ship, or will it just cause more BB overpens to penetrate and cause more damage? I sure hope it helps Emerald, she has so much going for her (if you ignore the armor).
  15. I've been testing the hill, and it has very poor hull armor, if you're attacked by rockets, you're fried .. projectiles from other DD do you a lot of damage, and it's been checked and the hull of the hill is basically the hull B of the FARRAGUT, they are exact with the difference that the farragut has better armor than the HILL, also if we compare it the NICHOLAS has better armor and HP than the HILL, it would be good to rejust the armor and Hp of the HILL. from rest the boat is good. compare armoreds DD: vampire T3 10mm as armor hill T5 o farragut T6 brothers hill 16mm nicholas T5 15mm hill t5 with amor T3 10mm clemson T4 13mm NICHOLAS GUNS & CONCEALMENT IS TOTAL BETTER NINJA HILL BOTTOM IS ALMOST EVERYTHING all DD lower Tier has Better armored thah HILL. please Wg UP armored hill... the torps are useless very slower & short range
  16. Big thing: I’m not saying that Tirpitz is underpowered, I just think her once razor sharp edge has dulled and it wouldn’t hurt to sharpen it again. I am not a great Tirpitz player. I don’t know why, I mean I’ve grinded all the way to Kurfürst and understand how to play the German BB’s I guess the ship just doesn’t suit me. So take everything I say here with some salt. Tirpitz is the oldest of the German BB’s in the game and she’s incredibly strong in the right circumstances. However, with the current gameplay those circumstances are rare and the majority of time is spent at long range where the Tirpitz couldn’t hit the ocean if it tried. At close range the main battery is perfectly fine and it has torpedoes along with 10km secondaries. However the current gameplay the Tirpitz rarely sees those close in engagements, often being forced to retreat from a Worcester or DM hiding behind an island. Not to mention slingshotting Hakuryus doing 30k salvos without losing a single plane. In the current gameplay close range engagements between ships happens most often at the end of games, meaning Tirpitz has to spend most of the battle in the one area she’s terrible at long range. I think that by giving Tirpitz better performance at long range will improve the gameplay experience. And on top of all this the Tirpitz main guns aren’t strong at T8. They’re decent but 380mm is the same caliber as Bayern, Warspite and QE which are T6. To sum up the punching power of a 15” gun is pretty bad at T8 on top of how in accurate they are and how few of them means that at long range the Tirpitz is really underwhelming. I think that by giving the Tirpitz slightly better dispersion or by decreasing the reload the Tirpitz will be slightly more competitive in the current gameplay.
  17. Sir_Davos_Seaworth

    Do we want a Dunkerque buff?

    Well, those of us that have love her..despite her faults... I'm gonna summon @Sventex since he has more games in her, and has posted videos on her. Now, she does many things well, and I have had some killer games in her. If you are top Tier, you can pass out the pain: BUT since I've gotten her, lots of other ships have been added to the game. The Mutsu, all the RN BBs, and now her French cousins... The meta has changed a ton to I think, so is it time for a wee buff? My thoughts, and ideas: Armor: Yeah, I know she is a battlecruiser, not a true BB. Great, but getting overmatched by all the red BBs suck. Yes, you can kite, use cover etc, but that only goes so far. Several people have brought up the fact that the Stasbourg had better side armor..which would help, but if you get get broadside to a red BB, you get what you get... What about her nose? They did it for the Moskva....this would reward captains that angle to the bigger gunned BBs, and not get citadeled right through yer nose... Another idea would be spaced armor like the CAs...that would help with all the HE damage. Yeah, I know more work...but that would help I think... AA: Of all the times I had a bad game in her, I think a CV has been behind it about 50% of the time. Everyone and their mom knows her AA sucks, and you get used as a punching bag for planes. Not fun. Fictional refit in the USA? Loose a couple secondary turrets for more AA guns? Maneuverability: She has good speed as is...but what about speed boost? It would help you get out of trouble if you bite off more than you can chew... (I do this a ton, LOL) Guns: Sometimes, you seem to be slinging citadels left and right, then next salvo goes haywire. Now, I know they are not gonna buff her sigma... BUT what about the reload booster that her big sister is gonna get? If that not, a ROF buff? Nothing crazy, but with the smaller guns and "special" sigma, maybe this is needed? Stealth: It sucks, LOL. Now, I know they go by the height of her mast, etc, but again, this could be a fictional refit, and you wouldn't get out spotted by...everything other than the Fuso... Now, I'm not saying do all this...she would be OP AF. But maybe one of these? Thoughts?
  18. So on Wednesday, WG finally decided to make a buff for Hakuryu. While it did do some justice to the ship and it is good to see they are finally trying to fix some of the damage done, there is still one particular thing about Hakuryu. The buff only affected the 2 drop version of the torpedo bombers. The 4 drop version can cause good damage if you manage to push home an accurate strike, but the combination of the nerfs greatly hinders their potential. The fact that they fly on flak level whereas the 2 drop variant avoids flak damage by flying under it, the fact that the aim is so slow and wide at the start, makes using them very uncomfortable. I think the best choice here is to buff the aiming and preparation time to be like the 0.8.0 version or at least close, but changing nothing else, except maybe slightly increasing torpedo speed if necessary. Making them comfortable and reliable to use, while still taking AA damage, will mean that the player will value the planes much more, but even if you lose a few planes pushing home a few accurate strikes with one squad would be worth it. In conclusion, the 0.8.0 Hakuryu had some good qualities and a rather large skill gap, average and bad players could barely get over 100k whereas the very skilled and unicum players could easily get 400k and above. So, the idea that CVs could be insanely overpowered when in the right hands, but not so good when in the hands of a poor player, I like it very much.
  19. I've only started tracking since 20 Feb but the Haku is falling way behind in games played as of 26 Feb. The nerf to it was pretty significant in the first hotfix. Current Haku games played: 36542 Current Miday games played: 50537 That is a difference of 13995 or 38% more games in favor of Midway. On 20 Feb games played were relatively close at 32520 for Haku and 37957 for Midway. It seems maybe the nerf was too much for Haku as CV drivers are playing the Midway at an accelerated rate. I think things will only get worse for the Haku when the Audacious goes live.
  20. rafael_azuaje

    Indianapolis Need Buff

    I have the Indianapolis , the cruiser need some buff becuase he is very fragile/weak is a omaha in T7, maybe Add Heath consumable.
  21. A comprehensive suggestion for rebalancing my Donut, and fixing her armor model errors. WARNING: THIS IS LONG AND TEXT/IMAGE HEAVY Buckle in boys, this is going to be a long one. So the tier VI premium light battleship (or battlecruiser) Dunkerque has recently garnered a bit of attention in regards to the presumptive reload buff she is receiving according to recent Dev Blog updates. The Buff is as described below: Now, as a long time player of Dunkerque (Donut, Dunkek, etc...) I have to say that the fact that she is finally receiving some attention is most appreciated. To my knowledge, Dunkerque has never seen any direct buffs or nerfs throughout her two and a half year tenure in this game. Naturally, much has changed in the way of meta since August of 2016, which was when she was originally introduced. Overmatch has become prevalent with the introduction of several new premiums and battleship lines. IFHE has become extremely prevalent ( if not necessary ) among destroyers and light cruisers. Newer ships are faster, or more accurate, have more guns, better HP, overmatch, armor, etc… Even the fabled CV rework is about to hit live, combined with news of a change to the flooding mechanics ( flooding being split into two sectors which deal less HP than one current flooding. 30% forward speed decrease, 60% reverse speed decrease ). Simply put, the game has changed a lot just in general. Throughout all of this, Dunkerque has remained largely the same, and it is my opinion that she is among the ships which have suffered the most from powercreep. I consider this to be quite unfortunate. I was for a time, one of the staunchest defenders of Dunkerque at her release, and for quite some time after her. Her speed used to be quite unique, as well as her bow-mounted main battery of extremely high velocity and penetration 330 mm /52 Mle 1932 rifles in two quadruple turrets. This layout resulted in occasional good groupings, and the speed of her shells made it relatively to hit enemy cruisers and battleships from near the maximum edge of her 18.2 km range ( 21.8 with a spotting plane ). Her flexibility and relatively quick reload allowed her to exert influence across a greater than usual area of the map, especially when compared to slower vessels like New Mexico. This helped make up for her relative lack of strength in other areas, and there are many areas in which Dunkerque was deficient, even back in 2016. We’ll get into those in a second. To add a bit of credence to my love for this ship ( and reinforce the fact that I’m not a random baBBie complaining because “Beeg ship no crush small ship!” ), here are my current standings in her. Not the best on the server, but I’ve certainly managed to do quite well. Being top 5 in Dunkerque is something I’m a little proud of. Unfortunately, I have stopped playing her in the past few months. To put it quite simply: she’s simply not fun in her current state, nor up to task for dealing with the current meta. Now, I said earlier that I would go into the various strengths and weaknesses of Dunkerque. Hopefully what I identify here will help my case for some of the buffs I will be proposing later. Pros: -Speed. Despite the amount of time that has passed, Dunkerque is still among the fastest of the battleships at her tier. At 29.5 knots without speedflags, she is tied with Normandie, and 1.5 knots faster than the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. Her advantage over the other premium and non premium battleships ranges from between 3 to 8.5 knots. This speed is valuable at a tier where most others are operating in the 23-25 knot range ( some as low as 21 ), no question about that. -Penetration and Velocity. Dunkerque's relative low caliber of 330 mm is deceiving. Her performance against vertical plate is among the best at her tier, being matched by New Mexico's 14”/50 and surpassed completely only with the introduction of West Virginia and her 16” AP Mark 5 shell. As we can see from the sweep, penetration and velocity are among the factors which do not trouble Dunkerque. She can penetrate the belt of most same tier battleships out to nearly her maximum range. The velocity still lets you snipe cruisers with ease, but in this aspect she suffers from Roma Syndrome: you will see a lot of overpenetrations. -Rate of Fire. Dunkerque has a 28 ( proposed 26 ) second reload. It’s not fantastic, but it’s better than most of the ships in tier VI. Some ships like New Mexico and Arizona truly suffer from some terribly ungodly long reloads, so I'm counting my blessings where I can find them. And… I’m going to be honest here, the list of objective strengths ends there. Her concealment is bad, although not worst in tier ( thanks Fuso ). Her maneuverability is bad, but not worst in tier. Her AA and secondaries are bad, but again, not worst in tier. What is objectively the worst in tier however, is her armor. Here we go into the- Cons: -Armor/Protection. Immediately, Dunkerque falls flat on her face. She is simply coated in 25 mm plating all over her hull. She has no distributed armor scheme, meaning that she is the most vulnerable of all ships at her tier to overmatch and IFHE. Dunkerque fundamentally lacks the ability to act as a good tank, or really a tank at all. Should she come upon the likes of a Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Bayern, Mutsu, or West Virginia ( to say nothing of tier VII/VIII ), she is largely defenseless. Hits by those guns along her hull will always result in penetrations or overpenetrations for guaranteed damage. The same is true when being struck by 4-6” IFHE equipped light cruisers, or 7-8” armed heavy cruisers. Dunkerque's problems with protection don’t end here though. In addition to the poor extremity/hull plating, her belt and bulkheads are quite simply put, the worst in tier. Her belt is 225 mm with a 40 mm sloped deck and a 40-50 mm flat citadel bulkhead. This is incapable of protecting her citadel from battleship caliber shells at most ranges, and makes her particularly vulnerable at closer ranges. The forward citadel bulkhead is a flat 228 mm. Simply put, this cannot stop any shell which overmatches the 25 mm bow, at any range. We have already identified the ships just in tier VI which can and do accomplish this task. In addition to this fact, her turrets are vulnerable. Far from being poorly armored, the problem with Dunkerque's turrets are that they are stacked atop one another, and very wide. By the nature of her playstyle, these turrets take a lot of shells, and one or both are often destroyed. Each lost turret represents a net -50% decrease in firepower. Dunkerque has no special heal or any other advantage to make up for these extreme and pronounced vulnerabilities. My first con section is already three times the length of the entirety of the pros. -Torpedo Defense. To put it frankly, Dunkerque's torpedo damage reduction value is an insult. Coming in at a little over 7 meters in depth, the little battleship had what was universally considered to be one of the best torpedo defense systems ever put on a ship. The Richelieu had a narrower version of this design, and ingame receives a respectable ( albeit still rather low ) 35%. Dunkerque gets [edited] 25%. Why. With her armament and armor peculiarities heavily influencing her playstyle, she is incredibly vulnerable to torpedo attack. This low of a value is simply inexcusable from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and hurts her massively. -Main Battery/Offensive Power. On paper, Dunkerque's guns seem quite good. I’ve already detailed the great strength of her belt penetration and the advantages afforded by her high velocity. These strengths are more than ruined by their weaknesses. First and foremost, Dunkerque has 1.7 sigma. This in itself isn’t a death knell, but then the rest of the picture comes in. She has only eight guns. She can’t overmatch same tier battleship hulls. Her reload, although short, does not make up for the loss of four barrels when compared to the infinitely stronger Fuso, which shares the same rate of fire. Then comes her horrific vertical dispersion, and then the fact that she overpenetrates anything that’s not a battleship belt or unfortunately angled cruiser ( Roma Syndrome ). To say that Dunkerque's main battery performance is frustrating, would be a massive understatement. No part of it compliments the other enough to overcome the weaknesses inherent to the caliber and dispersion characteristics at this tier. Her 130 mm /45 secondary battery is also poor, although not quite terrible. The shells have a high individual fire chance and good damage, however they fall short on penetration with 21 mm base. The mounts are also positioned awkwardly, making them hard to use reliably. Although the quadruple turrets are well armored, the twins mounted forward are not. It is not worth speccing into these by any means. -Anti-Aircraft. Dunkerque's anti-aircraft firepower has been poor since release. Although the 3 x 4 and 2 x 2 130 mm mountings have decent range, they fall flat with their low damage numbers ( no information as of yet on how they perform with the CV rework ), throwing up a measly 54 DPS at 5.0 km. Mid range is essentially non-existent, five twin 37 mm guns yield 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Short range is very short, with 8 x 4 13.2 mm mountings yielding a combined 40 DPS at 1.4 km. Simply put, Dunkerque can add being incapable of defending herself effectively from aircraft to her long list of downsides, even with a full AA spec. -Detection. Although by no means the worst in tier, 16.4 with camo ( 14.1 with CE + camo ) is not great for a ship of her particular playstyle and vulnerability. She gets spotted early, and targeted by everyone for easy damage, with no real recourse to prevent such a thing from occurring. I could go even more in depth, but I think this identified most of the key issues which plague Dunkerque, and why I personally believe that she requires more help than just a 2 second reload buff. Recommended Improvements (not necessarily all at once, just general suggestions): -add 27 mm plating amidships over the side and weather deck. Already being plagued with the worst horizontal armor protection in her tier bracket, Dunkerque absolutely requires an improvement to her tanking capability. Increasing the protection amidships versus 381 mm guns essentially achieves the same results as the identical change made to some tier VIII cruisers. It allows her to mitigate some of the otherwise unavoidable damage from overmatch. Leaving the bow and stern sections 25 mm allows for damage to still be dealt, but requires a bit more thinking than simply “point and click for 10,000 damage”. -improve torpedo damage reduction to 35%. By her nature, Dunkerque spends a large part of any given battle with her bow towards the enemy, moving back and forth with the battle. This is largely a necessity forced by her poor armor, in addition to her armament layout precluding effective stern-kiting. This makes her extremely vulnerable to flanking attacks by destroyers, from which she has no real escape. Increasing torpedo damage reduction not only more correctly represents the strength of the real system, but also helps decrease her extreme vulnerability to all forms of damage. -increase sigma value from 1.7 to 1.9. To help offset her low barrel count and lack of overmatch ( combined with a propensity for overpenetrations and her huge vertical dispersion ), better hitting ability would help compliment her high velocity gunnery, allowing her to more reliably punish enemies who make mistakes, especially battleships. Sigma values are largely overrated, but they still do have an impact. -improve anti-air defense with the addition of the originally designed light AA complement of five 37 mm ACAD automatic mounts. Because of Dunkerque's more static reverse-advance playstyle, she makes an extremely enticing target to aircraft. Often she is simply unable to maneuver in time to avoid torpedoes, or attempt to evade dive bombers. This problem will only worsen with the carrier rework. This buff also has a degree of historical relevance. Dunkerque was originally supposed to be equipped not with the twin semi-automatic 37 mm Mle 1933 mountings, but with five of the twin automatic 37 mm Mle 1936 ACAD mountings. This little guy. Image taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. These mounts are already present ingame, four of them being mounted upon the heavy cruisers Algerie, Charles Martel, and the battleship Gascogne. The mounting has a base range of 3.5 km, and generates 12 DPS. Dunkerque was to be equipped with five such mountings, yielding 60 DPS ingame. This is quite literally a five fold increase over the current 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Given that the close and long range values are still quite low in damage or range, this won’t make her a floating AA castle. What it will do however, is provide her with some increase measure of self-defense. An AA spec might be viable with such a buff. -decrease base detection to 15 kilometers. This is self explanatory. As a light battleship meant to be flexing back and forth with the cruisers, a large base detection range makes her extremely vulnerable to being spotted early, and farmed for damage. A decrease of ~1 kilometer should help this slightly, and give her just a little bit more tactical flexibility. And thus ends my section on balance. Eleven god-damn pages of stuff that I shouldn’t have had to write, but did anyways out of love for Dunkerque. I want to see her be viable, fun, and rewarding of skill. WG’s proposed buff of -2s off the reload does not solve any of the fundamental issues present on her, so these are my suggestions. Please recall that I do not advocate for all of them being applied simultaneously, but I do feel that most of them could be without pushing the ship into being overpowered. Simply put: no matter what buffs I recommend, she will always be vulnerable to overmatch and IFHE spam. She will always have lackluster secondaries, and poor maneuverability. Her turrets will always be at risk of simply being destroyed, and she will always lack the ability to overmatch same tier battleships. Now, onto the more interesting part. ARMOR MODEL INACCURACIES, WOOHOO Ironically enough, while WG has seen fit to make Dunkerque suffering to play, they have actually overmodeled some sections of armor thickness. The errors are as follows: Armor deck is too thick. WG has modeled it as a uniform surface of 130 mm thickness. According to all known sources, Dunkerque has a main armor deck ( Pont Principal ) with two varying thicknesses over the machinery and magazines: 115 mm and 125 mm respectively. Machinery: Magazines: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how it looks ingame: Here’s how it should look: Fore and Aft Transverse Bulkheads are too thick. Paradoxically, WG decided to use the armor thicknesses from Dunkerque's uparmored sister ship, Strasbourg, when modeling her forward and aft transverse armored bulkheads. Ingame these are modeled as 228 mm and 198 mm respectively. Sources indicate that the fore bulkhead should instead be 210 mm, the aft bulkhead 180 mm. Fore: Aft: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how they look ingame: Ingame Fore: Ingame Aft: Here’s how they should look: Actual Fore: Actual Aft: Yes, I am in fact arguing for historical armor nerfs in the very same post where I call for buffs. Deal with it. Aaaaaaaaaaaand that’s all folks. As if it wasn’t long enough already. Stares at 21 page length in Word. I appreciate those of you who read through this and take the time to comment. Please for the love of god, DON’T QUOTE THE ENTIRE THING. I’ll be hovering over the comments area like an overly enthusiastic grade school soccer coach does his team, so feel free to ask any questions, discuss, whatever. Hopefully someone important will at least read this. Edit: No, I don't know why the Forum decided to center literally the entire thing. I can't undo it either. Edit 2: Whatever, it sort of fixed itself.
  22. survivingscout

    Roma Balance Discussion

    Does anyone else feel that the Roma is lacking? I have most of (if not all) the available t8 battleships at the moment. (Massachusetts, Roma, Kii, Alabama, Tirpitz, and Gascogne) The Roma in particular feels extremely inaccurate. The shotgun feeling is even worse than the germans, with no hydro or worthwhile secondaries to account for. The Roma has a great 227m maximum dispersion with the aiming systems mod 1 installed, and yet, every shot is like rolling the dice. On top of this, Roma's shells have a very high chance to overpen, even on broadside battleships like Amagis. Either one of these issues would keep Roma from being overpowered as a gun platform, but together, they make the ship unpleasant to play due to the high inconsistency of the guns. Every other t8 battleship feels more accurate, even the Tirpitz with its German dispersion. Can we please try to improve the Roma's main battery accuracy to make it competitive with other t8 premium battleships? Leaving the high chance to overpen as a national flavor would be a fair compromise in my opinion. Link to a few of many posts on Reddit on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/90lxws/roma_needs_a_rework https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/7ryag6/roma_is_a_frustrating_experience https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8wxvm2/massachusetts_vs_roma_main_battery_guns
  23. First things first, I will admit the gearing is definitely not a bad ship. The introduction of the Daring and the Grozovoi buff are the reason I'm writing this. Defensive AA was supposed to be the US destroyer gimmick and I find my self hardly using it because giving up speed boost is such a trade for a consumable that you may use only once every 3 or so games. There are other ships with speed boost and defensive AA so why can't the USN DDs who are supposed to be the AA DDs have speed boost and defensive AA at the same time? I see no reason why not, it would allow them to still have an advantage over the Daring and other DDs and give the USN line something unique that I could actually use without sacrificing my acceleration and speed that the gearing desperately needs.
  24. So, if it's not obvious by now that have seen my posts - I do not like this rework Wargaming is thinking of trying, it has some truly bad ideas, while rehashing already tried bad ideas in a new package, and half the changes they will have to make to what they showed off work even a little, are the same changes needed to what we have right now to fix that - otherwise the Wargaming rework is pretty much doomed to fail in most, if not all, of it's goals. So, at this point I'm working on two versions of a rework, both of which should alleviate most, if not all the problems while accomplishing the same goals Wargaming's rework wants to accomplish. This version keeps the system pretty much 100% RTS, as it is now. The other version (that I'll post up after I refine some things more in my head) is a bit more of a hybrid of what they want to do, and the current RTS system (with the changes below). That out of the way, let's jump to it. Also, fore warning - this is a massive text wall; if you've no desire to read through the thing, leave now. Addressing the "fighter focus" and balance - One thing I have to agree with Wargaming on is that the gameplay has become heavily focused around fighters. It's become about who can take out the enemy fighters first, so they can just delete the remaining planes at will, with time overly spent on strafe, dodge, counter strafe, etc. Which, all of this has led to the lion's share of the "skill gap" between average, good, and top tier CV players. It's who deletes planes first. Simply put - strafing is and always has been the issue, at least in it's current form. The ability to press a button and delete 1/3 of a CV's entire hanger is just not healthy, poor design, etc. It'd be like a BB pressing alt to permanently knock out another BB's turret(s). However, unlike some, I'm not advocating for it's full removal - instead I say we take it back to basics and drastically reduce the DPS increase. Instead of what is likely close to or even more than a cruisers DF AA - we take it down to MAYBE 10-20% increase in DPS. It may still aid in taking an extra plane out a little sooner, but overall, this would change it back to what it was once about, hampering the accuracy of attack aircraft by braking up the formation essentially. In fighter vs fighter, it might be able to give you a slight edge if it knocks out an enemy plane, but at the cost of a chunk of ammo. But your planes being strafed will be far less worrisome, you might lose the same couple and 1 extra you would were they to click your planes and engage from a group of 30 planes, not most/all of the planes. Other than possibly scouting, this shifts fighters far more to a defensive role as opposed to what is best described as "Offensive Defense", where players will more likely send them to an area/ship to defend, really only worrying about active use if the enemy sends the bombers in a larger group (as if they are sent individually, the auto engage from having it defend a ship is far more practical). However for this to work, we have to address a key issue that anyone who has played tier 4 and 5 CV's all too well - the Balance of fighters. Simply put - the DPS of USN fighters, combined with the number of them, is too high. There are points where the difference between stock shoot down chances between USN and IJN are 10% or more, by far too high, especially when USN gets more ammo, at times better or as good speed, and slightly better AA protection with a lower damage drop off from aircraft losses. USN vs USN may be pure RNG - but USN vs IJN is almost always in the USN's planes favour, heavily. An example, Lexington's fighters have 63 DPS, 6 planes, 378 DPS, against the N1K's 1660 hp, is 22% chance to down a plane. The reverse, 70 DPS, 4 planes, 280 DPS, against 1700 HP - 16% chance. And this is one of the more even ones. Keeping this simple at the moment, the F4U's DPS should drop to about 42/43 DPS if we change nothing else. This would give it a 15.1/15.5% chance to down an enemy N1K, and even if it lost a plane, it'd still be over 12%, still less than the 6%+ gap we currently have. Which, keep in mind, the N1K will burn out it's ammo sooner. Realistically, I would tweak things a bit more, especially depending on a couple things, but actually buff USN HP slightly, maybe, if needed, a slight ammo increase, and of course, the DPS nerf, while increasing IJN DPS slightly, and maybe nerfing it's ammo a little, if needed. At which point, I'd also change the gaps between tiers. So, say, Kaga's A6M2's vs Hiryu's M5's. 44 DPS, 4 planes, 176 DPS vs 1410 HP - 12.4% chance. The reverse, 57, 4 planes, 228 DPS vs 1210 - 18.8%. Especially crazy when you imagine the difference is a pair of slightly bigger MG's on a plane slightly less agile. So, again, more simplistic version of change, buff it to 53 DPS for the A6M2, which, when combined with DFE, would up it to 16.5%, as opposed to the stock 15% it would be at that number - higher tier still retains an edge, but less of one. Meaning perhaps less issues of inter-tier matches of fighters being lopsided, if desired, especially given nations choices in weapons, mobility of planes, etc, the numbers could be even closer, as many after a point did not deviate far from consistent weapons, particularly the US. Which, brings me to my next point, as well as one of those things changes I'd make would depend on, is "National Flavour" - what makes these fighters different from one another. To which, at least with the 4 nations I can build ship and plane tree's for (USN, IJN, UK, Ger) see two models. The first which I will call "pure flavour" is just that - they have a super specific flavour, they stick to 100% throughout. In which USN is the "Tank" - best overall endurance (HP, ammo, likely DPS loss) but lowest DPS, IJN highest DPS, but more fragile and lacking ammo, with UK and Germany falling in the middle, UK closer to IJN and Germany closer to USN in what they lean on (DPS vs endurance). USN having 6 planes, as now, UK and Germany having 5, and IJN, 4, as now. Though there is a variation that Germany has more planes (7), with DPS similar to USN, if not a tad higher, but lower ammo. With this, generally, USN could play a little more aggressive, not worried as much with AA, than the other 3 if it scouts or wants to be a little more proactive finding enemy aircraft. Though it may take a little longer to knock them out of the sky.Where as IJN can also be more aggressive in that in can knock planes down faster, but has less ammo and HP so will have to rearm more frequently and has to watch enemy AA more. With UK and Germany being able to kinda juggle both a bit better. Really comes down to what the player thinks is best as while it can do offense and defense, they are still different ways of doing it. The other way, is what I'll call "Realistic Flavour" - At lower tiers, it's going to start at more the same as above and what we have now, sort of, in that USN has higher HP, lower DPS, IJN is reversed, etc. However, as the tiers go up, and the planes start to become more and more similar, especially around tier 8 (where USN would really be the last truly holding to it's flavour till the next tier) while they still have hints of their flavours, the aircraft are more similar as designs, thinking, and needs started to overlap. So, when you get to tier 8, you have the F4U, still using 6 .50 cal MG's (as per the current ingame model), so it maintains it's lower DPS and higher ammo count, where as the UK, German, and IJN lines have switched to a later Spitfire, Fw-190, and the N1K respectively - all armed with 4x 20 mm cannons (and additional MG's for the 190) giving them more similar DPS with lower ammo counts, however IJN still has a bit more than the other two (planes were still very agile), and Germany still more ammo than the other two (as the synced weapons would slow usage down), with USN in the next tier going to the F4U with 4x 20 mm's (necessitating an ingame model change, the tier 9 planes on Midway still use a 6 mg configuration on the model). With the possibility that there's a slight shift at the higher tiers of IJN having slightly more HP than UK (more durable planes than earlier, combined with radial engines, something most if not all UK fighters would lack, using more easily disabled liquid cooled engines) and USN edging out Germany in DPS but having slightly less ammo than it (as the German higher tier aircraft still use prop synced weapons, lowering RoF). They would still maintain a flavour but, as in reality to a degree, becomes less pronounced over time. The alpha strikes, a DoT base, and further reducing the skill gap - So, when Wargaming last decided to add more "action" to the CV gameplay, they gave us Manual Drops, arguably the lesser part of the skill gap issue compared to strafe, also added the last time they wanted to add more action. Now? Now we have players dropping near 60k alpha strikes on BB's with a single group of TB's from Midway, Hak's unleashing a wall of 8500 damage torps at ships. All because they press alt and drop on the ships doorstep. Again, an unhealthy, untenable, situation. However, with ships in smoke no longer spotted even with AA going, some of the tighter map designs, and the occasional need to drop further out, we can't simply remove this. Even at lower tiers this has caused issues, especially in the learning process. To which, the solution is an inevitability that has always been for the RTS system, that is inevitable even with what Wargaming proposes, and in both scenario's, leads to CV's becoming more about DoT and less about straight up alpha strikes, which is something I agree with. And that inevitability is - CV alpha damage has to be nerfed. And I'm not talking 5%, 10%, 20% either. TB's I'm talking around 80% give or take, 75% or there about on AP bombs, HE bombs, given few, if any, can hit the citadel of a ship, are the least affected by this at around say 40%, least on USN bombs. And I'm going to get into the flavour stuff as well here with the same 4 lines I mention above. When it came to attack aircraft development, can a bunch of UK planes carry a bomb? Yes, but few, if any, were really dedicated dive bombers. UK's thing really was torps, even more so than IJN, so with this line, they'd deal the most damage at 2000 per torp max, with 5 planes per group in an arrow/chevron formation with some fairly decent sized gaps - useful against a BB, or a bigger/slower cruiser, but not so much the more agile ones and DD's, though they can still score hits because like IJN, they'd be coming from more than one side. And they are completely reliant on these for the actual damage. IJN would be a bit more mixed, still more a capital ship predator, but has those DB's as well. There torps in terms of spread would be unchanged, but only top out around 1500 damage. Meanwhile barring a "mix and match" ability (aka, with USN right now being able to use 1 group AP and one group HE DB's instead of 2 of one), would lower IJN damage for DB's some, but give them S-AP bombs, or from what I'm told, similar to what GZ has for HE where it's like an "IFHE" bomb. Unless they can in fact make it that even if it's default you have 1 of each (as Japan did use in it's attacks a mix of Semi AP and HE bombs). Or have a separate branch using mostly DB's with a mix of SAP and HE and maybe a TB group and leave the mainline otherwise unchanged beyond torp damage and other listed changes. USN should really become the cruiser hunter that can maybe go after BB's. When it has torps, damage caps out at 1000 on that tight spread it gets, where as the AP bombs are brought down to maybe 1.5-2k Per hit, with HE dropped to about 5-6k damage (meaning were it to score a pen, it'd deal 1980 damage or less), maybe even lower as USN HE DB's need an accuracy buff, and maybe a slight nerf on AP accuracy. Sure you can take AP or DB to gear more against a BB, but the heavier, now more accurate HE bombs are geared more at cruisers and general purpose attack. Meanwhile, Germany, having really 0 real TB development, would lack TB's in the line, but have more, very accurate DB's (much like now) that deal maybe around 1000 per hit average so around maybe 3k damage on HE bombs. These would be really geared at hunting DD's, and simply burning down the other ships with fires and the sheer volume of hits, almost like the very thing they hunt, a DD. With the lowered damage, without a detonation, only the most unlucky/bad DD players should have any real fear of being taken out in a single shot, not counting resulting fire or floods that stick. These are also rough numbers for the higher tier stuff, lower tier or even these could be higher or lower depending on what exactly is needed to keep things in check. But the overall factors on damage being partially role, line "flavour", and most importantly the more accurate, the lower the damage, the less accurate the higher the damage - same as BB's, cruisers, and DD's. As to the aircraft themselves, Either IJN's planes would take an HP nerf, or USN get a significant buff. These would go back to the old ways of having numbers (in terms of groups) and speed to try and get through AA ad hit a target. Enough HP to not be useless paper tigers in the rain, but the lowest of all attack planes. I'm thinking, insane as it may sound, Germany have the next most, at 7 groups at the top tier, with break out depending on the exact loadouts we have and all. They as well will be a little more speed based, likely not quite as fast as IJN, but would still be a bit more about overwhelming a target. But the goal would also be to make sure they are just accurate enough to score some hits consistently on a DD, like at least 1 hit per group, but not just wipe it out in a nightmarish blitzkrieg strike. Still, admittedly, working on Germany's because of the likely change from Ju-87 to Fw-190 variants in the bombing role, unless we went really insane near top tier to Ju-88's. UK, the next line likely to release, least of another nation, is significantly easier, a good mix of speed and HP, get in, hit the ships, get out, likely maybe 6 groups like USN at the top. Solid enough to get through to hit a BB, but may want to think twice if a cruiser is nearby. USN however would have the highest HP. The planes may not be the fastest, quite possibly the slowest, but have the durability to go into the heaviest AA, and just kinda ram through it. If say, IJN is the rapier, - USN is the battering ram. Designed to knock out those AA guns and just wear ships down with fires and hits. With as stated above, the idea being that like otherlines in the trees and game, they have something they focus more on as a target - UK/capital ships, USN/Cruisers, Germany/DD's, IJN/more mixed - but is still effective against the other types, just not ideal. Lower Alpha damage takes out those one hot strikes unless you get a det or sufficient DoT going, while also allowing manual drop to stay and further close the skill gap because a noob hitting 2/6 as opposed to the pro's 6/6 will only be a difference of 2000 damage vs 6000 instead of 20k vs 60k. We keep our groups so we can actually attack multiple targets, stagger strikes, etc, and develop flavours based around aircraft type and group numbers. And the damage shift is more toward the DoT doing most of the damage, not necessarily the bombs and torps. Which if need be, DoT's can be adjusted (honestly, they kinda need a slight adjustment) and maybe we see DCP/repair CD's reduced closer to the levels of Gascogne/Mass. Loadouts - The shortest thing likely on this wall of a post - every ship gets 2 options, AS and Strike, other than maybe the beginning tiers. Tiers 4 and 5, maybe 6, generally stick with 1,x,x setups. Tiers 7 and 8, maybe 9 have AS ad strike setups of 2,x,x and 1,x,x respectively, and tier 10 (if 9 isn't similar) has AS and Strike as 3,x,x and 2,x,x. So, at tier 8, Lex would have 2,0,2 and 1,1,2 as it's setups, and Shokaku having 2,2,2 and 1,3,2 as it's setups. And before anyone loses their minds with that Shokaku bit it's an example, and even if done were talking with torp planes doing at best 1/4 the damage they do now. We,the players, should have an option, do we want a little extra ability to scout and cover the team, or a little more damage. And, should we encounter the opposite setup, knowing we are down a fighter or up a fighter but down on attack planes, adjust accordingly. Spotting, fires, and AA with a bit of survivability - Wargaming feels CV's offer too much vision, hilarious really when you have ships that get to the fight just as fast because no arming time at match start, with double the spotting range, aren't auto spotted 8 km out, have no automated defense against them unless spotted at the roughly 5-6 km they can sneak into and the ship has secondaries that reach that far and that's not even counting radar that can light up 4x4 sections of a map through an island with zero counter at all. Okay, fine, well, there's an easier solution then this rework making us use 1 group at a time - lower the aerial spotting ranges, particularly or better yet exclusively, those of DD's. Go look up map sizes you'll find most are between 36 km-45km I think it is. or, 3.6-4.5km squares. Meaning you drop DD's to around 1 km spotted by air range not only are we in even some of the shortest AA ranges, so they can open up if they want, but that leaves, if were dead center of a square, about a km in any direction, in that same square, they can hide in. Just as hard, if not harder, then finding the damn things in a storm, not that spotting a smart DD especially late game is particularly easy as it is. You want to lower it on other ships too fine, but given most of the bent out of shape on this one is over DD's, make it that much harder for us to spot them. problem solved. Not the first time they changed detection ranges. You want to make scouting harder, by all means, make it harder so maybe I won't have to hear about "go scout there" as much as well as the follow up whining that while my planes scouted an area, like they asked, they got hit by attack planes or couldn't bomb the ship they wanted me to. Fires, this has always been an all or nothing deal for CV's and I think that needs to change. For starters, undoing the nerf that made CV's easier to set on fire. The second would be to get rid of the "Emergency Takeoff" skill, and just make that a built in skill or a basic mechanic of the class. No other type has to stop firing because they are on fire, neither should we. We should have the reload penalty yes, but not out right shutdown. Third is that while I get the fact we have aviation fuel on our ships - the 24% hp per fire needs to go. I don't mind it being higher than a BB and the rest, but this is just way too high. Especially when you consider that we only get 4 flag slots, not the 8 of others, and unlike a BB, we do not get a repair, at any tier. If they would like to give us 8 flag slots and a repair, fine, 24% can stay. And even then I'd still say at least knock it down to 21%. And on the AA front, this needs the most change of this section. For starters no matter what direction we go, lower tier ships need later AA upgrades they received, or ones created for them, that match the planes they are going against these days, not the AA they had when we had Biplanes into tier 7. While on the reverse, top tiers can use some dialing back of their DPS from the days when we had jets blowing through AA. Carriers basically use early war-post war planes, and the AA generally should match. If we give those ships lower down the heavier AA, and adjust plane HP right, you get a more consistent line of AA increasing and plane HP as well, allowing for smoother transitions and CV's that are +2 not waltzing through AA barely scathed and -2 CV's not having there planes completely slaughtered. There'd still be a noticeable difference facing planes your own tier, higher tier, and lower tier, but not as drastic and frustrating. I also think that perhaps, we need to make a bit of a tweak on build and skills for AA, to which I think the best answer, though, not an ideal one, is to effectively make a secondary build and an AA build the same thing. That is, AFT is unchanged, BFT well, that goes back to 10% to AA and maybe drop it back to a 2 point skill, or buff it's reload to 20% as well and keep it at 3 points, the slot 3 upgrades to AA and secondaries range are combined to a single upgrade and manual AA and Manual Secondaries become one skill, call it what you want. At the very least, BB's and most cruisers going for such a build even with no CV present would still have some enhanced ability against ships, even if not the most ideal. With the only other thing being to just remove AA builds altogether, with the max AA/secondary range and MB range on DD's/Atlanta gaining that 20% to base, debatable on BFT staying or going, remove manual AA and make the module as I said upgrade both ranges, unless that's removed as well and simply just max the range of secondaries and AA with that and AFT removed, maybe have whatever reload/DPS for weapons either with or without BFT be the stock number and drop that skill. Just have the max AA range and whatever AA you got, and then just ability to focus. Another thing to consider is when it comes to air power, if even some of the nerfs I've put forth to it leaves it still too much, yet buffing elsewhere just breaks and sets us back where we are now, adding a single charge Df AA - with no multiplier just one meant to scatter the planes, to ships other than cruisers may not be a terrible idea. In a pinch, give a BB or DD the ability to better dodge/mitigate an attack if caught alone with no cover, call it a "mulligan button". But after that one, you best find a cruiser, with their more effective version, or other AA help of some form. The ideal defense in the future, same as it is now, should be stick near your team - safety in numbers. However I will also say this is one area where I would like to see their concept from the rework - planes having HP and AA actually doing damage, as well as the "sector control", actually built in to what we have. Make the AA like secondary guns popping off into the air (which would work even better if you combine those skills as one since now they'd be even more similar, maybe enhances all AA gun accuracy x% instead of double DP gun damage), and have the ability to intensify the AA to one side or the other (or maybe have this replace selecting a target as how AA is increased beyond just normal), still a bit more RNG vs skill, though, in the case of the non-CV player, a bit more control over their AA and all, and leaves the ability for a CV to choose to hit from two sides so potentially not all AA is hammering everything as it goes side to side attacking like in the rework. For as much as I bash Wargaming's rework idea, this is one of the few good ideas they had in it. Again, a good idea, not sure how their version works - carriers being rearmed after losses. I think CV's should start with their normal load, say, 72 planes. However, when either a type, or actual plane count, reaches 0 - a countdown timer starts on getting replacements. However, were talking minutes. So, if you manage to lose all your lanes in say, the first 5 minutes - you better hope the match isn't over in the next 2-5 minutes. I can't hammer down a time on this one, but it needs to be long enough that something like Kaga, stuck with tier 6 planes against tier 9 AA, can afford to attack those higher tier ships, and not be absolutely boned by losses in a 15 minute match, but some dunce that flys his squads in a Hak right at 3 AA build Des's in a 6 minute match regrets it, heavily. Captain skills - No matter what version of rework it is - this is going to need some overhauling. I'm going to start with the most mandatory skill of all CV's AS - wherein there are two options here. The first is, with reworking fighters and attack plane damage, rework the skill that it adds a TB to the group and a DB, but no fighter. The change in DPS makes the skill as is absolutely mandatory. And no matter what balance changes you make to fighters, the additional one will always make it mandatory, so, it needs to go. And with attack planes dealing far less damage, an extra TB won't be over kill anymore so it can have that addition back. Now it's a choice of, do you take the skill, adding more to your attack per group, but risking running out of planes a bit faster, or trade the attack power to reduce losses, know you have x reloads, and invest the points elsewhere. The other is we straight up remove the skill. Given it needs to become a mechanic, and is currently worthless as it's better to invest in premium DCP, Emergency Takeoff needs to go, maybe replaced with a skill that lowers the penalty from being on fire to reloads. AA build skills I think need to either go and just be more or less directly integrated to the ships, or they need to all be combined that AA and Secondary builds are the same thing. EvM - skill needs to lose the speed penalty, or at minimum drastically reduce it, and reduce the HP increase but instead of one way make it going in and out they have the hp boost. Keep the detectability thing if you want, switch it with ERG skill, making it a 2 point skill, and ERG 1 point again. And buff ERG to 20% DPS buff. ASE is the one CV related skill I have 0 issues with. That or replace ERG with something a bit more useful, what, I'm not sure. Side note - planes with rockets This is something I've been for, and would like to see implemented. However, at this time, I'm not sure HOW they would be implemented in this form, beyond low damage, even against a DD, but knocks out modules, AA, etc well and starts fires. is there a third setup option in certain lines where it replaces a type in the setup, like maybe strike Lex becoming 1,1,1,1, does it replace TB's or DB's, is it somehow tied to fighters? Something I want to see, the how I'm not sure of, especially if Wargaming apparently can't give us one group of AP bombs and one of HE. That said, there are exactly 3 nations I know of that carried rockets to fire at ground/sea targets in any real volume only two of which may show up in game really - USN planes could carry the 5 inch FFAR and HVAR, and I do believe some Royal Navy planes had the ability to carry RP-3's, ones that would see use in a UK CV line. Only other ones I know of are Russian aircraft, use of actual air to ground/sea rockets seems at best limited for Germany, I know of none for Japan, and no clue about France and Italy. So, barring a Russian CV line - I'd prefer it stay as USN and UK only with an option to use rockets. Anyway, that is my long winded post on how I at least would address the issues Wargaming wants to with the rework, without moving away from the RTS format. And I know it's liable to get hate from players on all sides but, is what it is. I may have forgotten a couple things given I took breaks and all so this took hours to write and may have forgotten something. The way it's written out makes it look like a ton, but in reality, it's a lot of more simple changes as opposed to full out re-imagining. And as far as the "Cinematic" look - seriously, just hit shift/Z with a squadron selected and that is EXACTLY the same view as what they show in the rework demo just no damage stages, which they could add, and reduced flak, an even easier add. What we have now is more than fixable, people just have to be willing to do it. At some point I'll post up my Hybrid idea, though, that may end up way, way shorter than this monster as I may just go over basics and point to sections from this thread. And if Wargaming staff is going to say "keep rework talk in the rework thread" - well I have no problems posting this wall in there if it means they'll bloody look at it.
  25. Khab needs a buff, not a big one, just a slight one is enough. When you compare it to Grozovoy and Harugumo you see it is quite lackluster. Be it better Rudder Shift (WG you nerfed it too much), 1 more Heal consumable. Simple stuff like that. Just buff it a bit please.