Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carrier'.

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 81 results

  1. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review - Ise

    The following is a review of Ise, the tier VI premium Japanese hybrid battleship-carrier. This ship was provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes at no cost to myself; I did not pay to get access to her. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.10.4. Please be aware that her performance may change in the future. Quick Summary: An Ise-class battleship refit into a hybrid carrier. Her stern-mounted X and Y turrets have been removed and the deck-space converted over to aircraft operations and anti-aircraft firepower. She may launch an attack group of four torpedo planes every 2 minutes. PROS Large hit point pool of 58,700hp. Excellent range on her main battery guns with a reach of 21.4km. Good accuracy with 2.0 sigma. Excellent anti-aircraft firepower for a tier VI battleship. Access to an air wing of torpedo bombers, allowing her to scout and deal damage. CONS Same wonky citadel geometry as Hyuga. Lots of shell traps thanks to her raised flight deck. Horrible gun handling and fire angles. Only eight 356mm guns with a 30 second reload, leading to poor damage output. Her 356mm AP shells lack the ability to overmatch other battleships and higher tiered cruisers. Large turning circle radius for a tier VI battleship of 750m and a slow rate of turn. I'll get into the specifics of the PROS and CONS of her aircraft down below in the Torpedo Bombers section rather than cluttering up this initial list. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / CHALLENGING / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / EXTREME I'm a bit iffy on my skill floor rating, to be honest. Battleship game play is not hard. Aircraft carrier game play is not hard. However, the two combined may be a bit much for some players, if only because one comes at the expense of the other and that's a bit of a trap. I'll go into more detail about this down below, but the TL:DR is that there are right and wrong times to use Ise's aircraft. And there are a lot of wrong times to use her aircraft. Most of these wrong times will simply compromise the efficiency of this ship's damage output but some of them will downright handicap your involvement in the match if not effectively remove you from it entirely. And that's not counting the times it will simply get you killed. For veterans, there's a lot of wonderful finesse that having an air group provides, including being able to scout and spot for your team (which is all kinds of amazing). So you get all of that nice, sniper battleship game play combined with some of the most broken CV elements? Yeah, there's a lot of potential here, even if her damage output suffers as a result. Options Ise's options are stupid simple and that's one of her drawbacks. She has no access to aircraft carrier consumables, upgrades or skills to improve her air group. Thus you're stuck building her the same way you would an artillery battleship, stressing survivability and main battery performance. You might be tempted to go with AA firepower, but the returns aren't as worthwhile as a survivability build. Consumables Her Damage Control Party is standard for a Japanese battleship, meaning that it's only active for 10 seconds as opposed to 15 seconds for most other battleships (and 20 seconds for Americans). It has unlimited charges and an 80 second reset timer. It's worth knowing that this cannot be used while controlling Ise's aircraft. I'm going to mention this a few times over the course of this review. Her Repair Party is also standard. It queues up to 10% of citadel damage, 50% of penetration damage and 100% of everything else. From this queue, it will heal back up to 14% of the ship's starting hit points per charge over 28 seconds. It starts with four charges and has an 80 second reset timer. Like with her Damage Control Party, this cannot be used while controlling Ise's aircraft. See? I'm repeating myself already. Upgrades Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. Damage Control Modification 1 is up next. You have two choices in slot three. You can reduce her dispersion somewhat with Aiming System Modification 1. Alternatively, you can (and probably want to) reduce her gun traverse time by taking Main Battery Modification 2. It's important to note that if you're going to for the second option you should also consider taking the commander skill Grease the Gears. The upgrade alone increases Ise's traverse from 4º/s to 4.6º/s. Both jumps it up to 5.5º/s. Damage Control Modification 2 is best in your final slot. Commander Skills With Dead Eye dead (and buried), battleship builds are getting pretty cookie cutter. Start with your choice of either Gun Feeder or Emergency Repair Specialist. Next, grab Grease the Gears at tier 2. If you want, you can swap this for Priority Target. Basics of Survivability is next up at tier 3. And finish things off with Fire Prevention Expert at tier 4. For your next eleven points, take the following: Concealment Expert (4), Emergency Repair Specialist (4) and Adrenaline Rush (3). Easy-peasy. Camouflage Hyuga comes with Type 10 Camouflage providing the following bonuses: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% to experience gains.  You can unlock Ise's alternative (blue) camouflage by completing the appropriate section of the Yamamoto Isoroku collection. Firepower Main Battery: Eight 356mm guns in 4x2 turrets in an A-B-P-Q in superfiring pairs. Secondary Battery: Sixteen 127mm guns in 8x2 turrets with a pair on either side of the main superstructure. Secondary Battery Let's start with Ise's secondaries as they're largely forgettable. Ise takes Hyuga's layout but nixes all of the 140mm casemate mounts leaving just eight pairs of 127mm guns mounted around the superstructure. Without any remarkable increases to range, accuracy or rate of fire and their crappy fire angles, it's safe to say Ise's secondary firepower sucks (and not in a sexy way). Ise's secondary firepower is worse than some cruisers. If you encounter Ise, forcing her into a brawl is a smart play. Her secondaries are of little threat and between her wonky citadel protection and horrible fire arcs, she's highly vulnerable. Ise belongs back on the second line, not up front. Main Battery When imagining Ise's firepower, think "Kongo". Ise brings an eight, 356mm broadside, the same as the tier V Kongo-class, but with the following changes: Improved sigma value (2.0 vs 1.8) A slight increase in base range (21.4km vs 21.2km) But no ability to increase it further (Ise lacks a Spotter Aircraft consumable that Kongo has). Improved gun handling (4.0º/s vs 3.3º/s) HORRIBLE, AWFUL, MISERABLE and WORSE gun fire angles. Ise's firepower is better than Kongo's. In theoretical engagements barring attacking targets at very long ranges, she'll generate a few more hits over time than Kongo grace of her increased accuracy. In practice, Kongo is the easier gun platform to use even with her horrible gun traverse. A 0.2 sigma difference is all but imperceptible to the best of players on a per-game basis. While Ise's improved gun traverse is nice, it does not make up for her horrible gun fire angles (not even a little bit). Don't even think about kiting. So for a tier VI battleship, Ise's main battery artillery is definitely not-great and arguably some of the worst at her tier (I personally rate P. E. Friedrich's as worse overall). Bad as this may seem, it's not unusable. Ise is still quite capable (and rather good at) obliterating cruisers and her 356mm AP shells have enough penetration to pose a threat to most broadsiding battleships up to about 15km. It's only when other battleships angle or if they're too far away that these weapons start to feel a bit weak. Overall, Ise's main battery firepower is poor for a tier VI battleship but workable. Their 356mm calibre, the lack of an increased rate of fire and the small number of guns keeps them from being competitive. They work, but they're not going to win you any races. Pick your targets where your individual hits will have the most impact. No surprises here. With only eight 356mm guns and a 30 second reload, Ise's AP damage potential is the worst at her tier. Thanks to Japanese HE shells doing more damage relative to their calibre, she's not quite in the doldrums for HE damage output, but spamming HE does not (and will not) make her competitive. Japanese HE shells have no bonus penetration the way German and British battleships do and their fire setting is among the worst at their tier. As an aside: Andrea Doria is the only battleship presently that uses SAP shells (hence the different colour and pronounced DPM presence on this chart). Though the Japanese 356mm may appear to rank closer to the bottom in this list, the difference between her penetration and that of Izmail and Arizona is so minor as to be a non-issue. At this tier, 356mm guns are quite comfortable, though when it comes to besting battleship belt armour, engagement distance below 15km are preferred Standard dispersion tests. This is 180 AP shells fired at a stationary Fuso bot that lacks camo at 15km. Shots were coming in from right to left with the bot effectively bow-tanking. All ships were using Aiming Systems Modification 1. From left to right, Fuso's 1.5 sigma vs Hyuga's 1.8 sigma vs Ise's 2.0 sigma. Ise has TERRIBLE firing arcs. They're almost British, they're so bad. In kiting scenarios, it's best to pretend that Ise is a six-gun battleship. Unmasking Q-turret guarantees that return fire will skip any ricochet-check mechanics. VERDICT: Individually, her main battery guns are fine. However, they are hamstrung by poor fire angles and the ship simply not being able to throw enough shells downrange fast enough to be terribly competitive. Durability Hit Points: 58,700 Bow & stern/superstructure/upper-hull/deck: 26mm / 16mm / 26mm / 35mm to 44mm Maximum Citadel Protection: 32mm anti-torpedo bulge + 299mm belt + 32mm turtleback + 32mm to 230mm citadel wall. Torpedo Damage Reduction: 26% Ise is a chonk. Ise's durability is ... well, it's okay. She has a lot of health for a tier VI battleship, and that's nice. There's nothing special about her heals, though. She doesn't have improved damage queuing like Warspite and Queen Elizabeth. She doesn't recover more health per charge the way New Mexico and Baebote does. She just has a lot of health which, in turn, gives her a larger healing potential. In terms of overall armour protection, she's soft but not irredeemable. Her positive traits include a dispersed armour scheme including a reinforced amidships deck and thicker upper hull plates scattered here and there. Similarly, she has massive anti-torpedo bulges that act simultaneously as armour voids while also being immune to overmatching from anything within her matchmaking spread. As if that weren't enough, immediately behind them are 199mm to 299mm thick belts which will again prompt a ricochet check, allowing Ise to double-dip this mechanic against incoming rounds. Unfortunately any good coming from these is largely undone by the massive areas of 26mm armour on her bow and stern, the latter of which creates an awful shell trap which greatly reduces the efficacy of angling. Similarly, because of her wonky citadel geometry, it's not only possible but quite likely for Ise to take citadel hits through her bow beneath her A turret, even when she's aggressively angled. Battleships armed with 380mm guns are especially dangerous due to their overmatch potential through these soft areas. Given how much broadside you need to give when unmasking her guns for any shot, Ise gives away a lot of hit points when she takes return fire. As I've already said, she's not agile enough to Just Dodge™ her way out of trouble. The biggest issue she suffers from when it comes to her durability is consumable management. You're often not going to be at the helm when damage comes in, so knowing when to stop playing with airplanes in order to deal with threats is an important skill to master. Seriously, just take my word for it -- Ise's citadel geometry is wonky in the extreme, especially with how it interacts between her belt and turtleback. It's a nightmare. Speaking of belts, hidden behind Ise's enormous 32mm anti-torpedo bulge are her upper 199mm belt and her lower 299mm belt. Behind the lower belt is a 32mm turtleback that's not angled steeply enough to repulse fire. Her turret faces are 305mm thick with 299mm barbettes. VERDICT: Not terrible. Those shell traps are a pain in the butt, though. Agility Top Speed: 24.5 knots Turning Radius: 750m Rudder Shift Time: 14.8 seconds 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 3.8º/s at 18.5 knots There's not a whole lot to go over in this section. Ise handles poorly and she feels like a big ol' dumb battleship. She isn't fast. Her rudder shift time is on the poor side of average. Her turning circle radius is large for a tier VI battleship. As a consequence of all of this, she takes a long time to come about. If you haven't upgraded her turret traverse, her lack of agility is very apparent, and doubly so if you're trying to run away from anything while shooting over her shoulder. With her bad fire angles and small number of guns, you will be tempted to swing out to unmask as many weapons as possible to maximize firepower. However, Ise is not nimble enough to be able to swing back in time to avoid return-fire in an exchange. This will just get you killed, especially in head-on engagements with so many AP shell traps towards the rear of her hull. Ise's only saving grace is that she nearly manages 25 knots in a straight line. At this tier, that will help control engagement distances. That I will give her credit for. Everything else is crappy. Yikes. She makes Izmail look good. VERDICT: Pretty damn bad. Anti-Aircraft Defence Flak Bursts: 5 + 1 explosions at 1,260 damage per Long Ranged (up to 5.8km): 164.5dps at 75% accuracy (123.4 dps) Short Ranged (up to 2.5km): 262.5dps at 85% accuracy (223.1dps) Brace yourselves: A Japanese battleship has managed to have the best anti-aircraft firepower at her tier. It's a close contest between Ise and Izmail for the best array of AA defences but Ise has the lead with the combination of weight of fire and flak. Izmail edges her out in range but only in range. For personal defence, the Japanese battleship generates bigger numbers and will cause more casualties. Though I don't want to take the win from Japanese battleship enthusiasts, it's important to keep in mind that "best in tier" is not the same as "good". Ise cannot prevent tier VI carriers from making an attack run and she barely has enough to ensure that they can't make two. Against tier VIII carriers, it's not even a contest. They can and will make repeated drops if they're willing to soak up the casualties to do it. Against carriers like Enterprise and Kaga, these casualties are not likely to be consequential enough from repeated waves pulling off the same stunt. Given that you're not always going to be at the helm when aircraft are coming in, Ise makes a tempting target with her predictable movements and lack of focus fire. With apologies to the colour blind. VERDICT: Best at tier but still lacking. Vision Control Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 15.84km / 13.83km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 9.84km / 8.86km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 13.81km Maximum Firing Range: 21.4km Most of what's going on here has to do with Ise's aircraft, but I'll save that for the section below. For the rest, all you really need to know is that Ise is a big girl. This is bad news for a ship with some fragility issues and one that you're not always at the helm when bad stuff starts going down. Though it's tempting to always keep Ise on the second line to help combat this, this really damages her artillery performance, especially against other battleships. When she's top tier, you can afford to be closer (so long as no one's throwing torpedoes around) but in higher tiered games that's seldom a safe option, at least not if you want to make any good use of her planes. This often relegates Ise to staying much further back than a battleship normally would (which is already saying something), if not camping out near islands. This temptation to keep her out of harm's way entirely is usually a mistake. She is still a battleship, after all, albeit one that brawls horribly. Her guns need to be kept in the game as much as possible. Nothing unexpected here. How about that loot-box bait, though? VERDICT: Predictably not good but bad habits and practices will make things worse. Torpedo Bombers Aircraft Type: Aichi M6A2 Seiran Ordnance: Two Type 5 Torpedoes per aircraft Group Size: Four aircraft, forming both the squadron size and attack wing Hit Points: 1,820hp per Aircraft Min/Cruising/Boosted Speed: 95kts/122kts/140kts Ise's bombers look gorgeous. Welcome to baBBy's first aircraft carrier! I saved this for last for a reason. Ise's aircraft are weird. Their game play is generally the same as carrier-borne aircraft however their resource-management is completely different. I skipped a break down of the PROS and CONS of Ise's aircraft to keep the initial list tidy, so here they are now: AIRCRAFT PROS May launch four torpedo bombers every two minutes, regardless of air group casualties. Good concealment on bombers with a 7.5km detection radius. Bombers drop two torpedoes each for a massive spread of eight fish from a full attack flight. Her torpedo planes have a lot of health for a tier VI plane with 1,820hp each. Aircraft launch from steam catapults with rocket-assisted boosts, giving them an initial high speed (up to 210 knots) for 10 seconds after launch. AIRCRAFT CONS Only four planes per flight, meaning any casualties taken immediately reduces the size of her drop. Unable to upgrade torpedo bombers short of flooding-boost signal flags. Torpedo bombers have no consumables. Individual torpedoes deal very little damage and have poor flooding chance. The spread of her torpedoes is too wide for all hits to land against a single target. Boost provides only an 18 knot increase to speed instead of the normal 35 to 40 knots. Player loses control of their battleship while flying aircraft. Dispensing BALANS™ Let's start with aircraft management. Ise's torpedo bombers DO NOT launch the same way as aircraft carrier bombers. She starts with no aircraft on deck. She has no hangar space. She does not passively regenerate aircraft one at a time. It is easier to compare Ise's aircraft to deck-mounted torpedo launchers rather than a carrier's hangar. Like torpedoes, Ise's aircraft have to be "reloaded" at the start of the match. This takes two minutes exactly. Once loaded and then launched, it takes another two minutes for them to reload again. Like torpedo tubes, as soon as the catapults are empty, the reload timer starts -- so this means that while the aircraft are flying around, the reload timer is passively ticking down back on your battleship. If you leave your "loaded" planes on deck, the reload timer won't start again until planes are launched. There is no way to decrease this reload time. Adrenaline Rush has no effect upon it. Played optimally, Ise can launch a maximum of 9 waves of aircraft over the course of a 20 minute match with the tenth coming off cooldown just as the game ends. Ise's aircraft do not "return to carrier". They despawn after climbing to disengagement altitude following an ordinance drop or being recalled. Their survival or destruction has no bearing on the reload time or composition of the next wave. It is always a flat two minutes from the last time planes were launched (not recalled, not destroyed, not after they dropped their fish -- launched) and each reload always has the full complement of four torpedo bombers. There is no way to reduce or increase this. Every launch is always going to be a full attack flight of four bombers. If aircraft are not launched right away then they remain "loaded" the same way torpedoes do. They cannot be damaged while on deck. There's no way of temporarily or permanently disabling their catapults (short of the destruction of Ise herself). The ship may still launch while on fire. This is very different from managing hangar capacity and aircraft restoration. Ise's aircraft have rocket-assistance to get them aloft. This provides a tremendous speed increase for the first 10 seconds of flight. Your boost can add onto this. Once the squadron is formed up, their speed can reach 210 knots, allowing them quickly cover the first 5km away from their mothership by the time they drop their boosters. The Empty Husk Remember how mad people were that Wargaming was taking away a lot of the ship-management details from aircraft carrier players? Almost nothing is automated on board Ise while you're away controlling your bombers. If you don't set your battleship some automatic way points or put the rudder hard over, she's going to wander in a straight line. If you listen closely, you can already hear destroyers drooling. You cannot use your ship's consumables while flying around. Furthermore, your ship isn't going to do it for you the way aircraft carriers will. Fires and floods will burn and bubble unattended. Heals will go unused. Perfect shots will go to waste. Only your secondaries and AA will fire, but otherwise Ise remains an empty husk while you're zooming around making airplane noises with your lips. Make sure you preset your planned course changes and lock your guns appropriately when you launch planes or you can come back to unmitigated disasters. This has gotten me killed a couple of times during play-testing. I cannot stress this enough: Stop using your bombers the moment your battleship comes under threat. Aircraft Agility Meanwhile, veteran CV players will notice some general weirdness with Ise's aircraft from the moment they're launched. First point of weirdness: Her rocket-assisted launching. Normally aircraft are slower on the takeoff but not with Ise. With the assistance of her boost, Ise's bombers become some of the fastest aircraft in the game, albeit for a mere 10 seconds. Second point of weirdness is the boost of her aircraft. It only has 10 seconds of charge instead of the normal 20 for torpedo planes. It keeps being weird with only providing +18 knots worth of speed instead of the usual 35 to 40 knots of other bombers (though if you use it when her rockets are active, you get +27kts which is better but still wrong). Finally the last point of weirdness, her bombers have no energy retention whatsoever. The moment your finger leaves the throttle, she bleeds all of the gained speed. This makes her bombers overall slower than her contemporaries despite her nominal speed looking pretty average. This will leave aircraft carrier players feeling like Ise's torpedo bombers fly more like attack aircraft. For those of you still relatively inexperienced with carrier game play, Ise's torpedo bombers do not behave as torpedo bombers should. Trust me. They're weird. They're supposed to be better than this. The rest of her aircraft performance appears normal or close enough not to matter. Their rate of turn increases and their turning radius decreases as the aircraft slow down. The inverse happens under boost, with slower rates of turn and greatly increased turn radius sizes. Their disengagement and recall timers all appear normal as well. Ise's aircraft do not gain as much speed from boost as other torpedo bombers. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for the respective tier VI torpedo bombers to bleed off their boosted speed (which is usually a bonus of 35 or 40 knots). Deceleration is (mostly) linear. Most torpedo bombers can hold onto their boosted speed for about 9 to 10 seconds, gradually losing it over time allowing them to maintain a higher cruising speed than their in-port values might otherwise indicate. Some keeners like Ark Royal and Weser exceed this by a couple of seconds. Ise not only gains less from her boost (only 18 knots), she loses it all in 2.5 seconds and her aircraft feel much slower as a result. Upgrades & Survivability With 1,820 hit points per aircraft, you could be forgiven for thinking that Ise's bombers have some reasonable survivability. However, their inability to receive any kind of improvements from upgrades or commander skills greatly impairs their durability. Flak and sustained AA DPS is more dangerous to Ise. What's more, she does not have the extra planes in a given attack flight to soak up casualties to be able to push through against high-priority but well defended targets. Every loss Ise's squadrons takes hurts the size of her ensuing torpedo drop. The only upgrades that can be made to these aircraft is through the use of signals to increase the chance of flooding from individual hits. Given the relatively low speed of these aircraft, Ise's planes are not only taking more damage from AA defences, they're also exposed to it longer. While they are tougher than your typical Co-Op bomber, they still melt like a bot's planes would. Ise's 1820hp per bomber doesn't look so impressive now, does it? It pays to keep in mind that the survivability increases for carrier aircraft don't stop there. The carrier commander skill Aircraft Armor (3pts) effectively gives the bombers the equivalent of 10% more health against sustained AA DPS while the skill Enhanced Aircraft Armor effectively gives the bombers the equivalent of 25% more health against flak explosions. This would put Weser's fragile plane totals when fully upgraded at the equivalent of 1,880hp vs sustained DPS and 2,136 versus flak, well ahead of Ise's flat 1,820hp. Crappy DamageYou might be thinking "Okay, Ise's guns aren't the best, but that's okay. Surely her torpedo bombers make up the difference!" Yeah, no... Her torpedo bombers are amazing and are definitely a feature worth celebrating on this ship, but it's not because of their damage output. In most cases, your main battery guns are better damage dealers. At its most basic, it comes down to alpha strike potential. Each one of Ise's AP shells has a chance to citadel for up to 10,200 damage. To match that, she needs to land four torpedoes. The same math works out for three unsaturated penetrating hits. That's again worth about four torpedoes. And Ise doesn't make it easy to land all of those fish. Drop pattern of the tier VI Torpedo Bombers. A special thanks to @Lert for making this easier to collect. Lining up my Reference Fuso™ with the replay camera for each replay in order to get the correct scale per screenshot was a pain in the butt. Arizona took less than 7,000 damage from this strike. Ise's bombers drop a massive spread of eight warheads, but it's very difficult to land all eight against a single target -- even if they're sitting stationary and broadside on. The dispersing fan-spread of her fish casts a wide net which is pretty nice for catching unsuspecting lolibotes and cruisers with individual hits, but it makes it all but impossible to smoosh more than a handful into the hulls of most targets. For a "perfect strike" to occur, you need to attack a long ship moving at speed from it's rear quarter (just behind the midway point of the ship) and hope that it doesn't dodge. Each torpedo hits for a maximum of 2,767 damage minus the effects of saturation and anti-torpedo defences. While it's theoretically possible to score a jackpot in excess of 20,000 damage for a single drop, I've only pulled it off in Training Rooms on bots. In practice, a "nice" drop will yield about four to six hits and maybe 8,000 damage if your opponent is moving predictably. More average drops typically sit in the 3,000 to 6,000 damage band once you factor in player avoidance and anti-torpedo defences. With only a 17% flood chance per hit (before being plugged into an equation), do not expect to cause many damage over time effects. Those are numbers easily reached by her main battery guns against most targets with single salvos, nevermind the repeated salvos that could be fired in the same time it takes for aircraft to fly to a target and setup a drop. The net result here is that against most targets, using Ise's torpedo bombers as damage dealers to supplement her main battery guns results in a net LOSS of damage potential. It takes Ise's torpedo planes 25 seconds to cover 10km from launch, and that's with riding the boost as efficiently as possible and taking full advantage of that brief period of her 210 knot advantage. Realistically, most engagements occur over larger distances, further increasing flight time and taking away time she could be cycling her guns. For her torpedo bombers to compete, she has to be dealing more damage on a strike than she could over the comparable number of salvos she could be firing. This is before we even get into the issues with dealing with anti-aircraft firepower. Any losses to the bombers on their way in reduces the damage potential of the strike. So you may be wondering why they're such a big deal if their damage output is patently inferior to the potential of her guns? Ise may miss out on the increased attack run upgrade, but her shorter aiming time means that she's actually faster at lining up her fish than most other tier VI carriers. The potential for damage is there. In theory, a perfect strike (however unlikely) is worth a pair of AP citadel hits which is hard to ignore. Reaching that potential is a lot harder with Ise's bombers. Once you factor in Just Dodging™ and anti-torpedo defences, Ise is nowhere near as far ahead. UNLIMITED POWAH The thing to remember is that battleship guns are not always effective. Their potential does not equate real world performance (it seldom gets close). There are plenty of instances where Ise's main battery guns just aren't up to the task. Maybe a target is out of range. Maybe it's behind island cover. Maybe it's a bow tanking battleship. Or maybe it's a cute whiddle destwoyer what needs a spankin' (oh yes it does! ♫) and your overpenetrating AP shells aren't a big enough paddle. It's in these instances where Ise's torpedo bombers become the better choice for dealing damage. But their function goes well beyond just hurting stuff. There's different kinds of hurt it can dispense too. The first difference is that while Ise's torpedo bombers may not hit particularly hard, because they're using torpedoes with a blast radius, the damage they deal is often to citadels. This means that ships hit by Ise's torpedo bombers are less likely to be able to heal back whatever damage is done. Against battleships, especially some of those Royal Navy battleships, she can deliver far more harm than the meagre damage totals of her fish may otherwise indicate as they can't claw back the health as readily as the penetrating hits that would likely result from AP shells. The second difference is flooding damage. Flooding isn't the terror of terrors that it used to be once upon a time, but it is another damage over time effect which stacks with fires. Attacking a target with an already taxed Damage Control Party can yield some nice juicy number padding so long as RNGeebus is feeling like a bro. The third type of hurt is a subtle one. Ise can force ships out of position. Players HATE torpedo bombers and will go out of their way to steer to avoid them. This instinct to Just Dodge™ can be used to force players to make disadvantageous moves. Ise can use her bombers to force a ship out of a smoke screen. She can make a battleship turn and flash their broadside to you or your friends. She can shepherd an enemy ship on the straight and narrow by running torpedoes parallel to their course from behind. She can even force them to turn away from an objective or vulnerable ally. NEVER underestimate the potential of this. Even without actually dropping fish, the mere threat can make your opponents make all kinds of zany manoeuvres. But that's not the most potent kind of damage Ise can deal. This last type of hurt is probably the most insidious. Ise can scout and spot. Getting destroyers killed wins games and Ise's ability to light up destroyers with her planes far outweighs any damage potential from her bombers. This is especially potent in the late game as she can quickly shut down marauding lolibotes that have survived to this stage, hounding them and forcing them to either smoke up or suffer the hail of fire from Ise's allies. You can even spot for your own main battery guns this way provided you've got your guns pre-trained and you're quick on the trigger after recalling. This extends not just to destroyers, of course. Anything with either crappy AA or an enormous aerial detection range is susceptible to being lit by Ise. If you're willing to sacrifice your squadron, you can even go after island-hugging cruisers, providing vision for your team to punish them. Heck, light carriers for your 20km range Fusos to snipe. Have fun with it. The further into a game you go, the more power Ise torpedo bombers have. Their ability to help reset caps alone while tanking all kinds of damage has won me a game that would have been lost in any other ship (and gave our last surviving destroyer a Solo Warrior achievement, how cool is that?). Stronger than the Sum of Its Parts As a weapon's platform, Ise isn't impressive. Yeah, her torpedo bombers are annoying but any ol' Bayern can (and will) rip her a new one provided they can get within 14km of her and don't flash their broadside to her guns. She doesn't outfight opponents, she outplays them. Ise does not have the raw firepower to win straight up trades. Instead, her torpedo bombers are a tool that helps wins games. They finish off low health targets. They slow your opponents approach to given objectives. They reset caps. They push ships out of smoke screens. They keep destroyers spotted. And sometimes they even do damage. Do not underestimate a well played Ise that knows how to make use of these planes. Their influence far outstrips their damage potential. VERDICT: Meta changing. Final Evaluation Ise is a paradigm shift. Now you can have carriers in your games without having carriers in your games. Ise upsets game balance in a similar manner to asymmetrical CV matchmaking. When one team has Ise and the other does not (and there are no other carriers present), one side has the decided advantage in vision control. While this may not matter as much in solo-play in Random Battles, in divisions or in any kind of competitive environment, the disparity will be much more pronounced. While I don't expect Ise to be a powerhouse in terms of damage dealing, she doesn't have to be to influence the course of a battle. Like Haida and Asashio before her, Ise's ability to change behaviours of the enemy team is what makes her overpowered. This is one of the first ships in a long time where I still feel I have yet to master her full potential. I can't say with 100% certainty what I would expect the upper damage totals for this ship to be. My own results while play testing this ship were highly volatile, though that was in part due to the experimentation I was constantly undertaking with each and every match-up. Ise is a ship that will grow with you. Those who choose to play her often and specialize into getting the most out of her performance will be frightening opponents. While I'm not too scared of encountering a random Ise on the enemy team, you can bet that I will pay close attention to how well they're performing, especially if they are coordinating with a division. Ise is fun in the same way carrier game play is fun. It's an entirely one-sided affair where your enjoyment comes at the expense of others. She's a strong ship. Mouse out.
  2. Darkshadow86

    United CV Community

    Anecdote: I've been silently looking around the forum for a bit, and I've noticed a pattern. That a lot of boisterous players see the CVs and either scream boogyman or a grim reaper. Which, to me, was confusing. I would look onto the cv forum to see what this "boogeyman" player base was, and it was a bunch of people who're are along the lines of "wargaming changed strafing planes by 1.3% this means that..." that isn't the warmongering tribe, I was lead to believe exists. That had made me ponder a genius idea. The Idea: We as a small CV community should come together, and find out what makes people so scared and distrustful of CVs, analyze, maximize whatever is the cause for such a legendary folktale and use it to prop up CV players. Let's find what people hate, maybe its a certain strike strategy, or a specific form of attack that is always successful, or it could even be a certain time frame to where a CV becomes 80% safe yet still a gigantic threat to the enemy team, by maybe rushing close to an island for a quick plane recovery and fast strike time. I don't know, but that is what we're all here to find out. So let's share common stories, most known rants about CVs, complaints and turn them to our advantage. Let this be the forum hub that becomes a hive of information and helpful advice for fellow CV players. Together, we can become the threat that they all perceive us to be. Rebuttal: Some people may say, "what do you know? You only have 1,000 battles. You will learn more through playing the game." That's the beauty of this post, this isn't about me sharing what I know with others, but the CV community coming together to share everything they know to become a more compacted and stronger community. Less every CV player for themselves, and instead every CV player, let's make this work together. Entirely unrelated Rebuttal: My battles are also low since I'm focusing on getting my degree in a few months, graduating, and hopefully joining the airforce OTS. Why do I care: Cause I get tired of seeing unneeded hate on a community that doesn't even deserve it. So, we may as well make what they hate our strengths. Key Points: Let's work as a community. Use their anger to make our community stronger. Grow as a community. Share as a community. Combat hate as a community by using knowledge instead of flinging it back. Most people who dislike CVs don't even play them.
  3. rafael_azuaje

    CV german ROCKETS question

    my question, the fighting planes have mostly mounts to load 6 rockets or 8, however it only fires 4 rockets, it is a nerf for the whole German branch CV. the other nations if this full rockets.
  4. This is a huge change. With the squadron consumable upgrade in slot 5, this will allow a patrol time of almost 2 min (112.5 s to be exact), and effectively instant interceptions for 105 s. The skill is now well worth the 4 points. The 10 point "full interceptor build" will be very strong in T8 and T10 competitive game modes, and possibly even in random games. Kudos to WG for making a viable alternative for those who seek a more defensive role for carriers.
  5. Tyberious_Invader

    Graf zeppelin--is it playable?

    I've been trying to use my Graf Zeppelin as a training ship while I regrind my german CV's, and oh my god it is terrible. -My rocket planes will completely miss destroyers with a perfect side-on strike, and half the time I'll typically get one or two hits and do 1.5K -AP bombers get a cit maybe one in ten pens on a BB, but you need 10 strikes to get ten pens when my reticle has a BB worth of space on either side. I've tried low altitude and high altitude, I've tried side-on and nose-on. I've tried aiming at the deck and the side plate. I literally can't make these bombers feel useful except maybe as scouts since they're wicked fast. -Torpedo planes are still meh, but at least I can get some semi consistent damage out of them. The secondary armament is stellar but that's only 10% of the game, when you take out an overly ambitious DD or low health cruiser. Am I missing something? Is there something the planes (DB especially) can do that I'm missing? I remember this ship feeling a heck of a lot better last year and now it feels like a low skill low reward newb boat.
  6. Hello.I’m a relatively new player to World of Warships. I am enjoying the game, but the more I dive into it I’m hearing more and more complaints about the current state of the CVs in the game, their playstyle and the lack of a good counter. I have some thoughts that I would like to share. I am a relatively new player, but from a couple of sources, primarily RADM Jingles in a video entitled ‘State of Play’ (posted 27 Nov 2020), I am beginning to understand some of the frustrations of the player base. One of the primary concerns seems to be the lack of an effective counter to carrier aircraft and their vulnerability of all of the other classes of ships to a carrier’s strike capability. As an amateur student of naval history, primarily the struggle between the USN and IJN in the Pacific during World War 2, I believe I have a solution that would both add in a counter to the existing carrier’s ability to strike at will and be rooted in historical naval doctrine. By early 1945 the US Navy had begun using some of the carriers in the fast carrier task forces as primarily fleet defense. Carrying a larger-than-normal fighter complement, they would protect the fleet from the increasing numbers of kamikaze attacks by Japanese air forces, leaving the other carriers free to continue their strike missions. I propose adding this element into World of Warships. I would reclassify the existing carriers from just CVs to CVAs (Cruiser, Aviation, Attack). These would continue to provide a long-range striking arm against the enemy fleet. I propose adding a second carrier line to the tech tree and call them CVE (Cruiser, Aviation, Escort). This line would be primarily made up of carriers that have never been in the game, with maybe a few that were removed during the CV rework. These carriers would be defensive in nature, fielding squadrons of fighters to patrol over the friendly ships and engaging enemy aircraft as they approached. In addition, once submarines have been introduced to the game, these carriers can then be upgraded with ASW aircraft to assist the destroyers in keeping the back-line battleships and carriers safe from enemy submarine attack. This could also be an opportunity to bring back the previous style of carrier gameplay. I believe this might keep the existing set of people who are enjoying the new CV gameplay but also reward skilled play in the fleet defense role. This would also necessitate a reevaluation of how XP rewards are given to better reward the teamplay nature of the CVE role. A properly-played CVE (pre-submarine) would have no kills, no citadel hits, no penetrations, no captures, no fires set, no floods caused. How would you reward this player then? Increase the rewards from Spotting ribbons and Defended ribbons. This would also have the added benefit of rewarding the destroyer captains who do most of the spotting already, and possibly adding a ‘damage done because of my spotting’ reward as well. Give them XP for enemy aircraft killed and a bonus for squadrons eliminated. Give them a bonus at the end of the battle for the number of teammates alive. I’m sure there are other options. Once submarines are introduced, then these players can earn kills, but they should be weighted higher than others due to difficulty of localizing and killing enemy submarines. If that isn’t enough, the CVE player could possibly have an ability on their fighters called “AA Suppression” or something where they could strafe an enemy warship and temporarily reduce the amount of AA fire coming from that ship, clearing the way for the strike aircraft from the other carrier. For this to be balanced, AA fire from existing ships would need to be increased, or maybe a different method of calculation could be used where the AA suppressions incapacitates the small-caliber stuff (40mm and less) but leaves the higher caliber guns unaffected. For the US, I would propose using carriers such as the USS Sangamon, USS Bogue, USS St. Lo, USS Commencement Bay and topping out with the USS Independence light carrier. For the Imperial Japanese Navy, I’d suggest Taiyō, Kaiyō, Shin'yō, Chitose, and Zuihō . The Royal Navy could use HMS Argus, HMS Archer, HMS Dasher, HMS Pretoria Castle and HMS Majestic. For the Kriegsmarine it’s a little tougher, but the Jade class, German aircraft carrier I and II would be a good start. Considering all the other things the Germans designed during WW2 I’m sure there’s more plans for small carriers that 5 minutes of googling could find. Even if the ships used aren’t the ones I’ve suggested, I would suggest moving up the escort carrier development trees and ending at Tier X with one of the fine light carriers that the respective fleets developed towards the end of the war. In conclusion, I believe adding a new class of carrier to the game will help smooth the current imbalance between CVs and the rest of the surface fleet and help change up the meta and is beginning to ossify. I also believe that CVEs will provide a ready-made counter to overly aggressive submarine captains vs the always-charging destroyers.
  7. Since I love the idea of a support carrier focused more on protecting my teammates than dealing damage, I tried a full interceptor build (all four of the support skills along with Squadron Consumables Mod 1) on Audacious in random battles during 10.0. I ended up switching back to a more standard (for me) damage mitigation and accuracy skills before the end of the free skill resets with 10.1. I've kept an American 19 point captain with the full interceptor build, however, for use in ranked and eventually clan battles. I made good use of this full interceptor captain in this last ranked season, and I saw on YouTube that @Ahskance (a much better CV player than me ) preferred this as well for ranked. With the smaller number of friendly ships to protect, you can make it work, and it is very powerful against FDRs, which are fairly common in competitive. What cripples the use of the full interceptor build in random is the -25% patrol times that is the penalty of the 4 point Enhanced Reaction skill. With the Squadron Consumables Mod 1 in slot 5, the longest you can keep the Interceptors on station is 67 seconds, the first ~7 seconds of which are warm up time, where they won't shoot anything down. Without the SCM1 in slot 5, you are limited to 45 seconds patrol time, with, again 7 seconds of that for warm up when you first call them to patrol. I've found that I'm more effective in random battles using SCM1 along with the 1 point Search and Destroy skill as well as the 2 point Patrol Group Leader skill at preventing strikes against my teammates due to the 90 s patrol times this allows. I've shot down more planes on average using this configuration as well, since the red CV is less likely to wait out the patrol fighters, and more willing to hazard sending his planes into the fighters for a strike in the hopes of recalling his surviving planes before my fighters shoot them down. Unless Wargaming wants the full interceptor/support CV to be limited to competitive modes, they need to eliminate or significantly reduce the -25% action time of the fighter/interceptor consumable that is attached to Enhanced Reactions. A 25% penalty is a high price to pay for any 4 point skill. Alternatively, they could leave ER as is and move it down to a 3 point skill, while moving Interceptors back up to the 4 point skill where it started and adding a buff that prolongs the patrol time if you select interceptors, effectively cancelling the -25% penalty on ER. ER is a great skill, and makes fighters work they way I always wanted them to, but the negatives outweigh the power of the skill except in ranked and (I'm assuming) clan battles.
  8. Battlecruiser_Yavuz

    Journey To The West Ships Review?

    Hello! I am curious what people think of the Journey to the West vessels. They are the following: -The Tier IX battleship Wujing -The Tier VIII aircraft carrier Sanzang -The Tier IX battleship Bajie -The Tier VIII cruiser Wukong What are they based on? Are they worth playing (price is not a factor to me)? Thanks!
  9. Michael_Gary_Scott

    A Fully Loaded F/A-18F Super Hornet

    A photo of an F/A-18F Super Hornet fully loaded with 10 x GBU-32 1,000 pound bombs taken by by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Matt Matlage. Each jet can carry more pounds of bombs than a B-17 Flying Fortress of World War 2 (which I think is between 4,000 to 8,000 pounds from a quick search). An aircraft carrier's load of F-18's attacking an inland target, I am guessing, must match or even beat the destructive power of the mass bombing formations of long ago. With GPS level accuracy (within 5 meters) using JDAMS, even more amazing. Just a random thought.
  10. Because there are now new support skills for cvs, that can boost the effectiveness of the fighter consumable, has anyone had any success using a build like this on Graf Zeppelin? I was looking in the fitting tool and you can increase the fighters range to 3.6 km. Combined that with Zeppelins very fast aircraft means this cv could have the role of supporting teammates by warding off enemy carrier attacks, and then using secondary’s when ships get to close. Could be useful in clan and ranked I imagine Graf Zeppelin players, what are your thoughts?
  11. Please take the poll and then comment if applicable. I notice that a lot of people complaining about CV play and CVs have not/do not play CVs. This poll may be relevant for data and balancing purposes, so take it seriously. Edit: Results and takeaways Game designed for surface ships, planes broke. Most experienced CV players think there needs to be another total rework. There are large differences between how individual ships perform against aircraft and CV counterplay is dependent on teamwork vs an individual, thus is very difficult. Solutions: Most players want better control over their individual AA. Players also want the CV to be more limited in its capability to send and replenish aircraft. Reading and thinking about the comments and results, I recommend 4 things: 1. De-emphasize carrier vs destroyer gameplay. Carriers currently ruin the playstyle of most DDs and are a hard counter to DDs, especially early in game. This makes DD life very difficult. CV vs DD play should be focused more toward hunting and spotting one or the other. I note that I do play both ship types and the interaction is heavily dependent on the skill, pre planning, and team cooperation for both players. I've torpedo'd a lot of CVs, and had a lot of DDs sunk by rockets or spotting. Currently, my best recommendation is to reduce the rocket attack plane squadron size by one attack flight. 2. Emphasize carrier vs carrier gameplay. The two carriers should essentially be dueling for control of the air for most of the match. I know WG did not want to include dogfighting, but this may be a solution. Rocket attack planes for example could be used to intercept torpedo bombers and diver bombers, etc. Rewards should be adjusted so that CVs that engage the enemy CV are fairly compensated for their time and effort, and game mechanics structured to make this both engaging and rewarding. 3. Bottom tier all carriers for the time being. Tier 6 should only fight T6-8, Tier 8 only T9-10, and T10 is stuck in straight T10 matches. 4. Rework AA to make it more complex and involved. Players should be able to see in depth stats about their AA and chose how it targets planes and squadrons.
  12. Background: I watched the video linked in this thread and got thru about 2.5 pages of the typical back and forth about aircraft carriers being part of the game. WG: You need to pay attention to this video - General Game Discussion - World of Warships official forum The video makes some good points about the evolution of the game, and the successes and failures of the CV rework. However, in spite of his claims to report just "the facts" the CC who made the video gets at least one concept about the AA mechanics wrong: both AA DPM and flak puffs remain at full strength when they overlap. WG considered diminishing the AA DPM as more ship's AA auras overlapped, but ultimately left them at full strength when they botched the implementation during one of the patches. I'd also argue that his assumption that it is easier to be a expert CV player vs any other class is also incorrect based on my own experience. I've found the easiest class to rack up big damage and experience numbers in is battleships, and it is not even close. The skill floor to be an effective high tier CV player is quite high. The skill floor for CVs is artificially low at tier 4, which is done in order to get players into the class. Currently, I think the MVR is more effective than the other T10 classes of carrier when you combine her AP bombs, AP rockets, each type of her aircraft having repair, and her stealthy fighter auras. I'm confident WG will eventually get her balanced correctly. I expect nerfs to MVR before the next clan battle season. Thesis: If you are going to have a naval combat FPS set in the early to middle 20th century, CVs must be in the game, and they should be an effective and powerful class for a skilled player. WG made the correct choice by including carriers in World of Warships. Players, especially players that have been around since before their inception, need to accept that they are not going away. I started playing in April of 2019, so how carriers played before the rework is not something I have experience with. I play all classes, and am looking forward to submarines when they come to the game as well. I enjoy playing my Midway (currently the only CV in my port) and I enjoy what carriers add to the game when I play all of my other ships as well. However, I have make deliberate choices in my ship selection, captain skills, and upgrades which greatly contribute to this enjoyment. Here are a few things you can do if you want to be more effective at countering air attacks during the game: 1.) Prioritize playing ships with powerful AA. The irony of making a video about how CVs are too powerful while highlighting play in a BB with one of the worst AA capabilities at her tier should not be lost on anyone. Play the Halland, Minotaur, Worchester, Texas, or any of the other ships who specialize in AA if you really hate being bombed. If you choose a ship or line who has weak AA, learn how to play around that weakness (e.g. play close to allied ships to stack your AA auras). You pay a price in some other aspect of gameplay to sail a powerful AA ship, so you should expect to pay a price in battle if you choose a ship with weak AA because you find some other feature of that class enjoyable (like having 9 x 18" rifles at T9). 2.) If you play a BB or heavy cruiser, always take AAM1 in slot 1. These are the classes whose main batteries do not contribute to AA. Also consider taking it for CLs and DDs whose main battery doesn't contribute to AA (French DDs come to mind, though I'm sure there are more). As the video correctly points out, you cannot repair damaged AA guns. Once they are knocked out, you lose the corresponding AA DPM output for the rest of the battle. Your main battery almost always is repairable if it gets knocked out (I'd estimate 90+% of the time). All things considered, buffing the survivability of AA is more important than your main battery. 2.1) Don't forget about AAM2 in slot 6 for high tier ships. While this is not as much of a no brainer as AAM1 and there may be other better choices for slot 6, this is a powerful upgrade you have at your disposal for boosting your AA. It is not just for secondary build German BBs. 2.2) AAGM1 in slot 3 isn't bad, but the other upgrades that compete with it in slot 3 make it hard to choose. WG should buff this if they want more players to take it, or move it to slot 2. 3.) Invest in AA captain skills. Even a ship with a strong base AA rating (like Des Moines) can benefit greatly from these. BFT is the best example, and I choose it on almost all ships where I don't take AAM2, or which don't have an effective AA consumable or some other method of escaping from concerted carrier attack (like smoke). 3.1) The captain skill changes WG is working on look promising, with one major exception. AFT used to allow you to increase the range of your AA auras. WG should bring back something similar as a 4 point cruiser only skill. To rule out stealth AA, however, it should only be effective out to the ship's spotting range from air. For example: Expert AA Gunner would include an increase of the range of all AA auras 10% with the outer aura expansion being limited to the ship's detection range by air. 4.) Take advantage of available AA consumables. Pick DFAA over speed boost (DFAA over hydro is admittedly a much a harder sell). Pick catapult fighters over spotting plane. Do this especially if you choose not to invest any captain skills in AA. 4.1) Catapult fighters need to be more effective, especially at higher tiers. I'd say it is possible to avoid a red ship's catapult fighters which I am attacking about 30 - 40% of the time when I play CV. There should not be any trick to using this consumable. If you attack a BB with 3 catapult fighters in the air before you drop your ordinance, you should lose 3 planes from your squadron every time. With the consumable lasting only 60 s, you should not have to get your planes in the air any earlier than ordinance being dropped on your ship. If you anticipate the air attack enough to get your fighters up 10 s or so before your ship is struck, they should shoot down the planes before the attack, not after. Whatever WG needs to do to simplify this consumable to make it more automatic (which I believe is the intent of the consumable in the first place), they should. 4.2) Any ship with a catapult should have the option of carrying fighters. WG recently started to make this choice available for some higher tier ships. They should make this a universal choice on every ship with catapult aircraft. 5.) The best way to learn to counter CV play is by learning to play a CV. Pick a line and grind it up to at least T8. Your play in every other class will benefit. Summary: CVs are here to stay. You can be effective in countering them if you choose to. If you choose not to, you should not be surprised when you are victimized by them. Moreover, if you choose not to, and then you complain about how game wrecking CVs are to the WoWs community, you have no credibility on the subject.
  13. A Plea to Wargaming: consider having carriers score more XP for their successful aerial attacks I'm finding carriers a pretty severe grind, especially seeing that the game has you skip a level to get to the next Tier-up carrier in many/most cases (so, instead of needing around 65,000 XP to go from T4 to T5, you need around 161,000 XP to go from T4 to T6 as there is no T5 carrier, for example). It's difficult/time-consuming to get that XP -- both for the ship and for the captain -- due to numerous reasons. Right off the bat: 1.) You have to have the right "load out" when your plane leaves the carrier. Want to hit that destroyer? Probably need to have missiles ready. The CA or BB? Either torps or bombs will work. CV? I'd try torps or missiles -- you don't have to brave the AA for as long as with bombs, since you can drop the torps/missiles at a distance. BUT.... What if the ship gets sunk before you reach it? Or it dodges into smoke? Or it ends up inside a group of ships with terrific AA? Then you're stuck with using the sub-optimal ordinance for another ship, OR you can simply return to the ship and try again. Meanwhile, the game may END before you get back into the "optimal" ordinance attack. 2.) You have to (safely) "approach" the target. This may mean you have to brave the AA fire of one or more other ships along your flight path. Or, you have to endure or dodge the fighter patrol the enemy carrier has laid down. Or your target may get sunk before you reach it, end up in smoke, end up inside a group of ships with good AA, or the game may end first. 3.) There's an optimal "attack run" you are trying to achieve with each ordinance you are carrying, and you want to try to get it to maximize damage. It's best -- scoring most number of hits and getting most damage -- to attack with torps and missiles from the perpendicular (side). But with bombs, it's best to attack along the longitudinal axis (length) of the ship to score the most hits. While you fly about trying to get into that attack run, again your target may get sunk before you reach it, end up in smoke, end up inside a group of ships with good AA, or you may run into other ships' AA, or the game may end first. 4.) Once in your optimal attack run, you have to survive your intended victim's AA fire. True for all attacks (surface vessels and planes), but planes have miniscule health, and die like flies. Not so much surface ships. 5.) After having survived the defensive AA, you need to have an accurate attack. Admittedly I've only worked with carriers up to T6, but missiles, torps and bombs all seem to have a bit of a "spread" or "dispersion" no matter how accurately I feel (or it appears) I've dropped them. PLUS you only have a VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME to drop off your ordinance once you are in your attack run, something VERY different from standard surface vessel attacks (where you can hold fire to watch a foe come out of its turn and present a broadside or "bow on" profile to you). 6.) Finally, your air attacks get weaker/worse as the game progresses and more of your aircraft get shot down (VERY different from surface vessels!). This is a real heartbreaker, as once you get 1-2 planes in your attack groups, AA usually shreds them before you can complete ANY attack. Plus, there's no way to "repair" the planes/air groups to bring them back to "full strength" -- something you CAN do to guns and torps when they get disabled/destroyed on a surface vessel. So your air attacks end up becoming weaker and weaker as the game wears on -- something that really doesn't happen to surface vessels. With a surface vessels you simply fire your ordinance (artillery or torps), wait for the reload, and repeat this action, again and again. For aircraft, to make ONE attack you must: a. select the correct ordinance for a future attack; b. fly to the target without getting shot down; c. get into your optimal attack run without getting shot down; d. survive the defender's AA fire; e. have an accurate attack (may RNGesus be with you); f. still have a decent number of attacking aircraft to get a decent amount of damage. Since all these things work (in combination!) to limit carriers' planes offensive abilities, I think WoWs should consider _doubling_ the amount of XP given to aircraft attacks (not carriers firing their secondaries, or ramming). This would reduce the grind of playing carriers, and might encourage more people use them (out of curiosity, just what percentage people in WoWs DO play carriers versus other ship types?). Plus, this would not make carriers "overpowered" in that I'm not saying increase the damage they do in any way, nor am I calling for improved flight/attack mechanics. Nope, leave it all the same, just increase the amount of XP awarded for plane-on-ship attacks/damage. Yes, I am a noob, and I am probably a fairly unskilled CV commander, Be that as it may, I've never EVER seen -- in 7 months of WoWs gameplay now -- a Carrier be top scorer in ANY game. Nor second highest scorer. (I have seen them appear as third-highest scorer, however. Maybe twice, or three times?) Just a suggestion for consideration.
  14. With the rework looming ever closer, I thought it would be fun to dash any hopes of the rework actually improving the game for whomever reads this. It's not because it doesn't address a few problems with the old, or because it introduces new problems that the old didn't have. It's because Carrier gameplay is the complete antithesis of how most ships work in the game, and no matter how you try to rework them it will never change. What makes them so unfit to be in a game based on ships in an era where their dominance was most prevalent? First lets discuss why the old CVs do not fit. As a note, this is mostly addressing random and ranked battles, and not the higher skill matches of clan battles/tournaments. In those, CVs are actually a good fit, even though it's only if every ship is either specialized for AA or suffering the consequences. Old CVs are an RTS without the busywork of base building etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with RTS gameplay, it can be very fun and it pushes your awareness and reflexes to the limit. However the RTS of CV is a complete failure in WoWs for 3 reasons. A highly reactive, awareness driven and reflexive gameplay does not mesh well with the slower, methodical and long term positional gameplay of the rest of the game. There is no skill based matchmaking (random/ranked) that is pivotal to RTS gameplay. This creates harsh games where one CV player is completely outclassed by another, and essentially locked down from having any real effect on the battle while the other goes on a rampage. The presence of a CV, and it's strength, reduces a lot of options other classes have, such as concealment, flanking, being aggressive etc. A CV usually forces a much more campy, reserved game along with the moans and groans of the players subject to it whether spoken or unspoken. And there really is no debate that old CV is a complete failure in the game. WG struggled trying to balance a class that was meant to have power based on it's real world era effect, but not so powerful that it ruined the experience for other players. Absolute fail on all fronts, from removed manual drops from low tier and stupidly strong high tier with strafes allowing good cvs to dominate weak ones, with some AP bombs that do well in defensive fire because F players. So, what will the rework change? Essentially 3 things. It removes most of the effect of cv vs cv, at least in terms of fighters. There is still some potential with cv sniping maybe. It reduces the awareness and reflexes needed to play, and it will increase the player count because it will be much easier, and it is. Unfortunately this is actually bad for the game because of aforementioned problems. You will still get that sinking feeling of seeing planes pop up on your viewfinder and know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop the first strike, and maybe not even 2. They will still force campy games simply because they exist, and low tier will still be hamstrung trash in how ineffectual you can be. And the best part is the more accessible gameplay will result in more games being subject to the forced campy playstyle by a ship with inexhaustible resources in which the only way to fight back is to hopefully not be the one he decides to pick on. Because make no mistake, if that CV wants you dead you are dead. With so many players jumping into their cvs in the hopes to cash in on the fxp when the patch hits, it's always amusing to see a normal player get picked on, deleted or just have their game experience ruined by that cv and to say "oh man I sure can't wait for the rework". Nothing is more sad than the naivete of that comment, because nothing will get better. Your experience in other ships will in fact worsen to the increased population, much like it is now before the patch hits. That is why the rework will fail, not because of the potential for players to enjoy the new gameplay of carriers, but because of the negative impact cvs will have on other ships, always, simply by existing in any form. They are a detriment to the balance of the 3 class triangle. This will be a dark and annoying quarter of 2019 for ships, born of WGs refusal to cut their losses and instead devote a year or more of resources to implement a new gameplay style that does not and can not address the fundamental problem that is a gameplay style of power with impunity results in bad experiences. I remember long ago when someone let us guess what the rework could possibly be, all the while getting a no/not even close to all our guesses. They weren't kidding, nobody could see this coming, because now instead of one cv in the game having the ability to hit whoever while he holds the other cvs hands behind his back, now both cvs are free of eachother and can lord over everything in a match. instead of a fighter counter, a damage race. No bad positioning mistakes to be had like with other classes, that have to take a lot of time to re position in hopes to be effective. Just turn a few times and drop away. Whats that, the last 2 strikes of your group got shot down? That's fine, just fire up another and be right back there within 30-40 seconds. Do yourself a favor. Take a break from WoWs. Find another game to idle your time with while WG tries desperately to rebalance new cv gameplay in a live server, and toss out all their old 'progress' of 3 years out the window. Or play cv yourself. YOU DO NOT want to be a ship in the rework, even with AA, because it probably wont stop you from being hit at least once, and if you're a DD just exit straight to port. Remember, after a cv strikes it has to turn around and wait for the timer to hit again. Thats about a time sink of 15-25 seconds. If you kill the rest of the planes after that first strike instead, that's still only 30-40 till the next full squad. Sure it will be a different type, but i'm sure it will be completely fine getting constantly harassed until you are dead with fires/floods etc. A rollercoaster of fun. Anyway, that was long winded, but the effect of this rework is important to talk about. I for one will spend my time playing another game or just playing CV, because at least if I am the CV I can't have my game ruined by one. See you at the apocalypse.
  15. Herr_Reitz

    Carrier up-tier must stop

    Devs, any WoWS people who might stumble upon this, look... Up-tiering carriers has to go the way of the dinosaur but not take that long to happen. IF I WANTED TO FIGHT AGAINST TIER 9 AND 10 SHIPS, GUESS WHAT - I HAVE TIER X CARRIERS. Up-tiering the GZ into tier X dds, cruisers and the odd BB or two is just completely stupid. Let alone other tier 8 carriers. Tonight I loaded up the GZ.. on the wait screen there were 20 plus carriers, FORTY SEVEN BB, 14 CRUISERS and 17 DESTROYERS. Know how long I waited to battle? Maybe TEN SECONDS. How nice. Not. Our team got roasted, nuked driving broadside to the reds, running back and forth on the map without sinking anything, and of course I'm left having to fight mostly tier X ships. On unequal ground. Yes, feel free to erupt in joyful laughter because it is hyena hysterical levels of duhdom to engineer such a farce in the first place. I'm happy I can say I didn't create this... mess. No way I'm gonna believe anyone who tells me oh the poor other carrier had waited nearly 3 minutes. Nor the BBs nor any of the other ship types. Sure I'd break nobody's heart if I walked away again, because this is getting old, WoWS. Old indeed. What's the problem with matching carriers TOP-DOWN? You know 10/9, 8/7, 6/5, 4... No problem, none whatsoever that I can see. There's always plenty of ships in those tiers. I know because I play all my ships. I have had great setup times, always less than 30 seconds. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I play those battles where there are NO CARRIERS in the game. If you don't have any carriers for that tier - or any ships to fight at that tier - USE BOTS. You're already doing that in randoms anyhow. HENCE, there is no longer any reason to up-tier carriers. Down tier them. Twenty minutes (or less) later, I'll take out a carrier that would fit into the tier and yup, UP-TIERED. I guess maybe you think the best way to winnow down the number of carrier players is to stuff them into battles two tiers ABOVE their designed tier? After that match I can go back to the other ships in that tier and yup, no carriers. I'm pretty tired of all the [edited] surrounding up-tiers, down-tiers, HYBRID SHIPS, constant scraffin with the carrier interface, on and on and on and yes, ON. I think I'm taking a break from playing carriers. Let em rot in port. Find your aircraft targets elsewhere folks. I'm just sick. And tired of this "dynamic game play".
  16. Gods_Eyes

    The only issue with CVs:

    This is World of Warships. Not World of Airplanes. Am I playing as a pilot, or a boat captain? Specifically all spotting ability needs to be removed from airplanes, including attack planes and torpedo bombers. Everything. Zero spotting ability. Allow me to explain: I just played a tier 6 match with two carriers working together. The first located and perma spotted the destroyers sitting BEHIND friendly AA cruisers(no issue here right). The second came in with rockets and killed the destroyers. If two carriers are banned from divisions, they should currently be banned from having 2 in a match together. Their ability to spot and work together with focus fire is unparalleled. However, this highlights the most important balance issue with CV. They can spot with planes. The ship itself is a tall ship, and should have super buffed spotting ability. Give the CV itself the ability to see concealed destroyers 8km away, but the planes need to have ZERO ability to spot at all. This would balance the game play to put it on par with a battleship. To draw a parallel: A Montana can shoot anywhere on the map. I devastating strike derpy players in the first 2 minutes of matches, easy. Despite having similar ability to strike anywhere on the map, The Montana Cannot Spot 25km Away. So let's take a step back. Saying the planes shouldn't be able to spot anything would be MUCH more balanced than the current iteration of carriers, but it's not perfect. So what would be? Here's some ideas: 1) Create "no spotting" zones within (about) 2km of all islands, where destroyers cannot be spotted by carriers whatsoever. 2) Penalize missed drops. If the Hakurya wants to drop some of his torpedos on an island to save planes, those planes should instantly explode when neither of their torpedos hit an enemy target. I hate that I have to game the system and drop bombers to stay relevant as a CV driver. It works around AA in a cheating way. ~ I love playing carrier. Recently regrinding the IJN destroyer line for research bureau, and it has become extremely apparent how big of a balance issue carriers have right now. Destroyers (ESPECIALLY AT THE LOWER TIERS) are irrelevant against Good carrier players. Yes, I can still use my destroyer in a relevant way occasionally, but that is ONLY against carrier players that have no idea how to play. As it stands, the carrier is a radar boat with 40km radar. 12km radar itself should be removed from the game, so tell me, how balanced do you think 40km radar is??
  17. Two items: 1) Use of main battle display mini-map to designate autopilot route. We USED to have this. You just held down the CTRL key then LMB clicked on the minimap WHEN you were playing a carrier. It may have worked for any ship but I know it worked for carriers. Why do this? To my knowledge, carriers are typically the only ships using autopilot. As nice as the "M" key map is to look at, in the middle of battle, having to use it takes time away from the player's combat actions, breaks game focus and often must be performed at the worst of times. Please bring BACK the use of autopilot on the main battle display mini-map. 2) The "M" map needs options. There is no zoom option for the map display. I cannot move the map about, it is a static display. Zoom PLUS map movement would add great value to the map. No configuration options. Oft times ships are so close together the text overlays make the map well, useless. Autopilot waypoints/routes need a COLOR option. If I plot a route on this map I want to choose a color that stands out to me. I also want the option to make it bold, bright - maybe even blink once every second or so. Of these two requests, the first should be an easy-peasy deal as it was coded up during the RTS days. I've said it before but I will say it again. It is a PITA being forced to open the overhead map just to designate a waypoint. The alternative, CTRL + LMB on the minimap would be excellent. There is one other thing that needs to work in a consistent manner - assigning way points. I'm not sure it does, currently. If I LMB click the overhead map, a way point should drop. If I move my mouse and LMB click elsewhere, the previous point should be erased. The new point is placed with a path to that point. If I LMB click again, the previous point will be erased. A new point and path should be drawn. Over and over, just one point. If I LMB with the shift key held, my points should stack/accumulate, so I can build a longer route, up to five way points. If I LMB click after placing five waypoints, everything should be erased and I will have only one point. I believe that's the way it is kind of designed to work... what I'd like to see is a more clearer method, perhaps using the shift in one scenario and the ctrl in another, so placing/removing way points functions every single time.
  18. https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/63 CONCEPTION TEST ST, CHANGES TO AA AND DETECTABILITY RANGES BY AIR Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website. Soon there will be a closed test session of changes to AA and detectability range by air: Detectability range by air of all ships significantly reduced — by between 40-60%; When activated with the 'P' key, AA defenses will no longer instantly operate at 100% capacity, but will instead gradually increase in efficiency, reaching 100% after 7 seconds. The inverse applies when deactivating AA with the same key; AA guns start preliminary firing at planes at a range 30% higher than their maximum value. When flying in this outer aura, shell explosions appear above and below the course of a squadron, and continuous damage is not dealt. These changes will allow players to choose between fighting planes or relying on stealth to avoid them in different situations. After lowering detectability ranges, AA guns could start firing while the ship was hidden. The mechanics of preliminary fire will exclude such situations, and the gradual increment of AA damage will protect planes from sudden and unexpected waves of AA fire after the guns are activated.
  19. So I know that people are going to get angry at me and tell me CV's should be garbadge and be removed, but I'm going to say this anyway Tier 8 carriers, when uptiered to tier 10, are woefully underpowered. There. I said it. Let the angry comments and negativity flow! All kidding aside, I feel that tier 8 carriers are in a good spot at their tier. At tier 8, I feel that most carriers are in a pretty good spot with some even being borderline overpowered. Sure you can have a CV focus you down if you're alone, but usually you won't do a huge amount of damage or get an absurd number of kills (in my experience). There can be exceptions, *cough American CVs cough*, but for the most part, carriers are not as rewarding as surface ships are. However, notice that I said they were fine at tier 8. When these ships are uptiered, it's a nightmare! Now I am not saying that tier 10 ships shredding planes is a bad thing, I've gone full AA builds on my Des memes myself, but it would be fine if there was about 3 or 4 tier 10 ships as you can try and avoid them and wait for ships to isolate themselves from the rest of the pack. But the constant matchmaking I often have is that the entire enemy team is filled to the brim with tier 10. In that situation, the best you can hope for is to maybe get some chip damage on enemies while having all of your aircraft lost at the first half of the battle. In something like the saipan, where your aircraft replenish slowly, you have to rely on getting your armament on target while being sure you will be completely deplaned. That's why I consider it the weakest aircraft carrier in the entire game as of now. In short, I feel that tier 8 carriers are so underpowered for the constant tier 10 matchmaking they are faced with. But I want to keep this positive so I wanted to give a few suggestions to any of the dev's who might be listening. After all, we should try and give feedback to help make things better. My first idea is the most straightforward. Make it harder for the matchmaker to uptier carriers. Heck, maybe make it harder for some other ships to be uptiered like cossack and z-39. Other ships which have heavy problems with being bottom tier. Maybe after a certain time, the matchmaker allows these ships to go into tier 10 battles just like tier 10 double cv games were solved. My second idea was a little bit more risky. Nerfing the AA of tier 10 ships to tier 8 aircraft. Not tier 10 aircraft, tier 8, ok? Good. As I said this is a bit more risky since this could be exploited by unicums and statpadders alike so I am not sure about this option. Finally, my last idea was to give tier 8 carriers planes a little more health. This isn't the best idea either and is pretty much here just for the rule of threes. This could be easily exploited by sealclubbers who could slaughter enemies without fear of taking heavy damage. Anyways, these are my thoughts on this. I may be wrong about some things so I would love feedback from others. I don't want carrier's to be broken or horribly unfun to play as or against. I do want to see this rework succeed. I hope this layed out my, and other's, issues to those who were willing to read this gigantic vomit of text. Have a great day out there wherever you are! (And please don't get me started on AP bombs vs HE bombs. That's a topic for another day)
  20. Holy... I wasnt believing... It is real! I got an Enterprise! My missing Big E!!!! I am shaking! Equiping Enterprise AL commander and skin! In all community streams i asked for enterprise, not on boxes, but to get her... I was asking on EU in german, english, on NA, i bothered @crysantos , @tucci, @Hapa_Fodder and @MrConway a lot! Now i finally got it, and i wasnt believing it was real! the drop rate cant be small... @El2aZeR now i can tell you, not all carriers are OP, Enterprise need a nerf. Her bombs are double kaga average power. Kaga usually his for 7 to 8k, enterprise 15k.
  21. So today on Reddit i saw a pinned vid about the kidd kidd azuki div against cv's, Well played, i as a CV main actually find this a good idea, ish, i like the idea of directly countering cv's, making them go along with the rest of the team for protection and making them have to pay attention and be a team player. But 2 problems from my strategist point of view. Warships is a game of chess, dds, cls, cas, bbs, cvs. The bad part of the new div is this, what cv is the best protected in the game against dd's ? WHAT IS IT ? MO*********** RICHTHOFEN AND GERMAN CARRIERS. Cv players might play German carriers more due to their better protection regarding dds. And then who pays more ? BB players now have to deal with more firepower pointed at them on top of dd's and he spam ships. This might make bb's useless besides damage farming ships. Just a thought. Second thing is the rise of uh, how do i say this politely, More F***** HE SPAMMER ships, what else are German Cv's good at ? Get your V2 Program up bois, Wunderwaffe rockets that are 210 mm ap shells. Now heavy cruisers also pay for having less aa than cl's, in citadel blood. Think about that, think very hard about that, a meta where the only option is he spammers. Do you like it ? Cause if this continues a change in the world of warships environment means that the only usable class will be he spammers, and ca's will be replaced with ap throwing cl's like Minotaur. This is my prediction if this continues that in a year without a serious meta changing ship class. Now what about subs ? Thy help compound the problem who is best protected against subs ? Cl's and dd's. Cl's get depth charges and decent maneuvering, dd's are even better, making all other classes and sub classes absolutely useless. I dont hate these divisions, but they might throw the game farther into the void of dying games. I dont really know waht to say but teamwork is the better way to neuter cv's not a 3 dd div, a 1 cl, 1 ca, 2 dd div would be better imo. This is just my theorizing if the Kidd, Kidd, Azuki Div become prevalent. Side note, since the kidd is premium a more likely combo to arise is something like either a Benson, Benson, Azuki div or Oland, Oland, Azuki Div. All i said earlier still apply but those are more likely to arise than the Kidd which is premium.
  22. Well tonight there were four red dds, three of them div'd. A Kidd, Akizuki and Oland. Which left the fourth one, a Z46 free to roam. I notified the team the DDs would try to push through the team to me then keep going. They were not, later verified, the original proposers of the concept. But indeed, they stuck to the plan. Full tilt from the start, they pushed hard to break through. I was in my Graf Z. Man our team was so good, so very good. Once they saw what I had suggested was happening, they bound together as a frickin' team. As many had projected too... as the threesome was held at bay they had no dd force on our east side of the map - we had two. Our team, in the words of one player, said, "Wow the whole east side just melted". At the end of the match, we lost four ships - they lost eleven. I finished sixth, no kills, a tad under 60K dmg dealt. I really enjoy matches that truly come together. Thanks everyone!!!
  23. Okay, quick reading through the stuff for the most recent update. Looking at collections, missions and I realize I'm missing something. I see no second camo color options for carriers. I see no second flag for carriers. I think there are other things for dds/cruisers/bbs which are not listed for carriers. Were these options supplied in other missions already over? Halp! tia fyc
  24. 07Beast109

    French Cvs

    Has anyone heard any talk about French Carriers, coming in game anytime. Since the French did actually build some CVs
  25. Felipe_1982

    FDR embargo has fallen?

    Hello, FDR has her embargo fall? Richtofen too? I know Richtofen will hit our shores on 08/05/2020... But already? I see ST doing matchs today...