Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carriers'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 18 results

  1. Curious.. just had a match with a Tier 7 (red team) Ranger and Ryujo facing off against our T6 and T5 carriers. Is this a thing? I apparently thought wrong - that a T7 would not face a T5, yes? Nobody was div'd. If this is permitted - how the heck does WoWS/WG even begin to consider that a fair fight, a balanced match?
  2. I have been thinking about carrier play and the rework for a while, and I would like to give my opinion through a retrospective of WarGaming’s CV design and the new elements that are currently being planned on being introduced. There will be a lot of text so I have included a tl;dr at the bottom. Past Failures of CV RTS Design I have played CVs since closed beta so I have been here with every twist and turn that carriers have gone through in balancing, and they have gone through a lot. There were times when AA was very oppressive, times when counter-play against carriers was possible without having to rely on captain skills or teammates, times when BBs were more heavily punished for being absent minded that a CV was in play, but the class has never really felt useless. The carrier class was always about bringing insane firepower onto a single ship to devastate it from a top-down perspective where the carrier has full control of the situation, and that is the major problem of the design. Whether it is done through alpha strikes or damage over time stacking, it does not matter since the goal of the carrier remains the same. Sure, other classes do this also, but here is where the detractions of the gameplay design come in. When you provide a RTS perspective for a player, you give him full control of the battlefield. No other ship type is given this boon. With a powerful strike package, a carrier can simply choose which ship lives or dies. No matter how the other player tries to avoid sinking to a carrier strike it is ultimately not in his control. The carrier gets to choose how many resources he dedicates to this, which is a part of the RTS (Real-Time Strategy) design. The other ship may be a full AA speced high tier cruiser, but all it takes is enough planes and enough patience to wait out the defensive fire and that Des Moines is almost guaranteed to be sunk. However, in pretty much all RTS games this is a battle between RTS players and not individual units. Sacrificing resources to destroy another player’s units may have the same effect but that unit is another player, and that is not something we want in this design. So, how do we fix it? How do we fix CV RTS Design? There have been many other games that have done this asynchronous gameplay of players being the units with there being one commander wearing the “RTS pants” really well. Games like Natural Selection and Savage: The Battle for Newerth. In both of these games, one player controls the commander from an RTS perspective while the rest of his team control his units. If WarGaming wants to learn how to tame CV play from an RTS perspective, they need to look at how these games do it. In these games, the commander is a supportive role that gives tech (research and upgrades) to his team’s units while managing resources. The commander gets to choose how the units play based on his choices of what tech they should receive and what part of the map needs to be controlled to gain those resources. This is exactly how the flow of an RTS game happens, while the units are soldiers that do the shooting and play as a team together which is what FPS (first person shooter) games do. Now, this is just one formula and World of Warships obviously cannot follow that exactly since surface vessels do not need to receive tech, and forcing everyone to listen to a commander would anger pretty much everyone in the current player base. Even though this would mean that the carriers on the team would be put into a more passive role, we can still take much of what these other games do right and put them in World of Warships. The first is the supportive aspect of the RTS role. Currently, this is only done through fighter control to provide spotting and deny the other carrier any vision. WarGaming has always very poorly implemented this, as this can functionally be ignored as we see it done by almost every CV player since as win rates have proven it is much easier than and just as viable to treat your fellow teammates as pawns and meatshields. Enemy surface vessels are treated as free kills for the most part so most of the focus goes to denying the enemy carrier the ability to farm them like you would be doing. Surface vessels largely have no say in this matter, and this is where we can bring in the successes of parallel RTS/FPS gameplay. In order for the carrier role to function properly, surface vessels need to work in tandem somehow with their carriers, whether it is for providing some bonus effects like resources for the carrier or keeping the carrier alive. I am not sure how this could be done but this would vastly improve on the current system, as carriers not having to rely on their team as their team relies on them is where a large part of the frustration comes from for surface ship players. Another problem is the very direct role of doing incredible damage for only a risk in resources (planes). While this may be balanced, it is very unfun for the surface ships. Surface ships should not have to feel like they are worth just a few planes for the enemy CV. This is possible in the RTS/FPS hybrid games that I have listed since they are competitive in nature so a sacrifice of one unit to for an advantage by destroying some resources to win a game is not a bad experience for the FPS player. However, this will not work as we need to treat surface vessels as equal individuals not in a competitive environment. This means the player gets full control of his ship on the strategic level and has counter-play against any dedicated carrier strikes to take him out. At certain points in CV balance and in the rework, this was possible, since even the most dedicated strike can be and should be thwarted by good gamesense, positioning, and dodging of strikes from the surface vessel without any team co-ordination or strategic play on the RTS scale. This is possible in the current rework and is something I like from it. So let’s talk about that next. The CV rework Quite a few players hate the rework, and I understand why. Removing the RTS gameplay entirely from carriers is a big fat mistake. This not only alienates the entire current CV player base, as well as also destroying the interesting parallel between RTS gameplay and surface ship shooting gameplay. There is a BUT here though, and a very big BUT. The current CV rework does fix a majority of the problems plaguing the game that have to do with carriers and in a way is a step forward more than it is a step back. I do think the game needs direct control of planes in order to make counter-play work between carriers and surface vessels, as this includes some level of skill to pull of proper strikes while having an interesting mechanic involved. The CV rework solves a big problem in that the devastating striking ability of a carrier actually takes effort finally. Many CV players will hate me for stating the ugly truth that the striking gameplay takes almost no skill at all. To manual drop even a destroyer for great effect is not hard at all, involves little counter-play from the defending surface ship, and is an almost guaranteed demise when pulled off properly. Sure the destroyer can use speed boost, smoke, evading tactics to attempt to mess up the cross drop of torpedoes that will remove his health pool but given free roam of the skies it is so easy that there is no reason that any even mildly experienced CV player should not be able to pull it off. The only real difficulty of striking comes from controlling the air and teamplay between enemy ships but as we have discussed earlier this is not something that really happens in non-competitive environments like those that we see in random battles. The interaction between players in providing AA cover is mostly incidental. This is why we see players with terrible winrates that play frankly worse than bots, send in their autodropped bombers in to some helpless unsuspecting victim and come back from a coffee break to have a higher average than you would see on most ships. Yes, I am talking about you high tier USN CV players. We all know you love to make everyone else in the game suffer with minimal effort and want your air supremacy loadouts back so you can turn other CV players into your victims. Thankfully, the CV rework fixes this entirely. For once AP dive bombs are not oppressive to surface ships, having them be dropped a few at a time so there’s plenty of time for AA to chew threw your planes and not to mention the awesome effect of having to actually drop your bombs with effort into enemy citadels like surface ships have to! One of my favourite parts of the rework. Reworking the CV Rework Let us go back to discussing why the CV rework is so flawed and how we can fix this. We have established that the CV rework does fix many of the problems, and keeping CV RTS gameplay is essential; so why not implement the rework while keeping the RTS elements? This can be done by replacing the current almost braindead manual drop mechanics with the interesting direct control mechanics seen in the rework. Whenever a CV player goes in for a strike, give him the option to manually control the strike with accurate split-squadron strike groups as well as simple, less accurate automatic drops that use the entire squadron. I imagine that cross drops with this would be difficult but very rewarding. This should not be very difficult to implement as both mechanics exist on the playtest and live. Next, we need to keep some functional fighter gameplay. Not having fighters in a carrier strategic game is not good. Let carriers control the fighters to defend areas or ships and attack enemy planes. This can still be possible while the carrier is in direct control strike view by implementing fighter AI. If the carrier goes into direct control mode with his strike, the simple commands he has given beforehand to his fighters can still be followed but it would make it impossible to control other squadrons while in direct control mode. We fix this by implementing an AI that when it achieves the task it was given before it would go to the nearest ally ship or area and patrol it. If it were to stray into the AA bubble of the enemy it should break off to keep the squadron intact, but this can and should be changeable with simple RTS UI elements that are found in other RTS games like telling them to hold position, engage at will, or patrol. Other bomber squadrons in AI control mode should be able to stay out of harm’s reach and run away from fighters. So not only are we implementing the direct control mechanics, but also enhancing on the RTS elements of CV gameplay. Great. We can also put those damn near-useless rocket planes to use by letting them engage enemy planes as the fighter-bombers that they should be. A big hurdle we have to deal with here would be fighter on fighter combat. Obviously, it should not be as simple as clicking on an enemy squadron and letting them do their thing. With the addition of fighters and direct control mode, we can meld these two elements together. Instead of the unintuitive strafing mechanics, we can let carriers directly control the fighters in some way, in order to effect the outcome of a fighter duel to a degree with micromanagement. My suggestion would be to let the carrier direct control the fighters in some way that gives them a damage boost but lowers their defense, making it a risk/reward so that it still keeps automatic fighter combat even if CV players would prefer to micro their strikes instead, but adds some finesse to fighter combat. All of these changes are to keep the CV playerbase from not being alienated due to lack of RTS gameplay, while fixing the current gameplay by making it more simplistic in terms of control with a better perspective that account for surface ships being actual players that need to enjoy the game and not feed oppressed by CV elites. Our next topic is a recent update on how CVs function in terms of their progression and their abilities in the game. The CV Tech Tree I’m not much of an expert on naval engineering and history so I’m sorry if this part is opinionated while lacking knowledge; please correct me if you feel like those parts are not accurate. In their recent blog posts, WarGaming revealed that the new tech tree for USN carriers would look like this: I feel like this is mistake. Based on what WG has alluded to in their blog post, it seems like these ships will have similar functions with minor changes in loadouts in the same tier, like perhaps one consumable and AP bombs vs HE bombs. This is very boring and frankly a step backward from how the tech tree is implemented now. It also ignores the interesting history of CVE/CVLs. We can implement CVE/CVLs as a separate tech tree and make them much different from standard carrier gameplay. I have noticed quite a few people really dislike the ideas for supportive gameplay, after all why should they be baBBysitting when they want to do damage? Others have disagreed and said that instead of focusing on damage they want to be the supporting backbone of their team by using air superiority and spotting. We can use this rework to implement both. If we separate the tech tree between CVE/CVLs and CVs it might look something like this: Langley v > Bogue Ranger v v Casablanca Lexington v v Croatan Yorktown v v Commencement Bay Essex v v Saipan Midway Just from a historical perspective, this keeps all of the ships that we love from the current USN tree while implementing other historical and interesting vessels to play with. This also allows us to see those pancake planes and jet fighters that were removed from the game earlier in development. From a gameplay perspective, this will allow for the two styles of play that I have mentioned earlier. Support vs strike. In their post, WarGaming alluded to planning to introduce some support abilities, which would be perfect for CVE/CVLs. These ships would have a modest hangar space, if any at all. Their squadrons would be very small and perhaps in the fighter department (at least for Saipan) quite powerful. However, their main power would come from their supportive abilities. WarGaming mentioned on plans of implementing planes that can drop hydrocaustic buoys, smoke screens, and seaplanes that can capture points. Add radar to them, and this line of ship would be perfect for this sort of gameplay, while still keeping CVs around as they were without any abilities that players often call “gimmicks”. Of course, we could also have gimmicks for CVs as well. I’m sure some players might be interested in a torpedo bomber reload booster, some access to CVE/CVL skills, or carriers with heavy secondary armaments. Premium buyers do not need to worry, as their premiums would still fit nicely into the tech tree while allowing some new premium ships to appear (Gambier Bay, anyone?). The current Saipan could be renamed to her sister ship CVL Wright, and be a downtiered Saipan which would make sense because her planes were higher tier to begin with. So here’s the tl;dr I promised for those that hate reading: - Implement CV rework while keeping (and improving) on RTS elements by learning what other games did right. - Remove manual dropping and strafing but keep direct control as in the rework for similar gameplay functionality. - CV rework is good but it does not need to take a step backwards. - Allow for better control of planes with guard mode and patrolling functions using already build-in AI. - Keep fighter gameplay, make it more intuitive. - Instead of splitting up the CV line like in the blog post, implement CVE/CVLs instead and have them be support oriented.
  3. Come on WG forum staff, you already do wonderful work, why not post and sticky it yourselves? Cheers to @YamatoA150 for posting it first on a different thread, but I feel this needs its own separate. Commanders! Following yesterday's article about the next iteration of the carrier rework testing some questions have been asked which we had not properly addressed. We'll try to do that below and hopefully clarify the situation around odd-tiered aircraft carriers. Why did you decide to leave only even tiers of aircraft carriers in the game? There are three main reasons for that: The match-making will benefit from this Carriers always get into battle symmetrically, so if 20 people queue up with different aircraft carriers, each at a different tier between 4 and 10, then will be standing in 7 different queues. If only even tiers are available, then the number of queues decreases to 4, which means it will be noticeably faster to get into battle. Waiting times will decrease, while the number of balanced battles will increase. Progression between carriers will be better Many significant parameters of air groups which noticeably affect what they feel like and how they perform in battle do not change smoothly, but only in discrete jumps. An example of such a parameter is the number of aircraft in a strike group (these are the aircraft that are separated from the main squadron to make an attack with torpedoes, bombs or rockets). At tier 4, there are currently two aircraft in a strike group, while at level 6 there are three. This obviously does not leave any room for progression at tier 5, within this parameter. There are a lot of such parameters and having them change noticeably and clearly contributes to a feeling of progression, which is one of the effects we wanted to achieve. Gameplay becomes clearer Having a clear progression between carriers will also mean more clarity for a carrier's teammates and opponents. The mentioned differences in air group parameters will be more pronounced between even tiers than they are now, which will make it easier to evaluate relative carrier strength and choose how to counteract it, even just by looking at the battle loading screen. So what's the plan? Here's where it gets interesting, as there are many options to choose from. Obviously we haven't spent months modelling these odd-tier carriers just to scrap them. At the moment we intend to transition them into second carrier branches of aircraft carriers with alternate gameplay styles - another way to influence the battle, a different approach to claiming victory for you and your team, as well as different interactions with allies and enemies. There are a lot of different options here: they could do a little less damage and assist their allies more instead in different ways like spotting enemies or through other advanced capabilities which were abundant with aircraft. It's possible that some types of aircraft in such alternative branches would be able to set smoke screens, saving heavily damaged ships from destruction. They might also be able to help allied battleships with putting out fires, or even land on water and capture objectives. Aircraft might even have something in their arsenal to help combat submarines should that ever become necessary. These are just some of the options and you should understand that they are meant as auxiliary interactions that can be done together with directly causing damage to the enemy team, not instead of that. Certainly not all of these ideas will make it into the game, but those most promising ones have a good chance of seeing it through. Most likely such carriers and their squadrons would be slightly more difficult to play than simple strike setups, which would make them a good choice for those players who will have mastered the initial post-rework carrier gameplay. Why not simply shift all aircraft carriers to even tiers and release 2 branches immediately? In this case, same-tier carriers in one nation would be almost identical in terms of gameplay. We're doing a lot of work to make aircraft carriers of various nations different from each other. However, we can't make multiple branches different, yet equally interesting and balanced using just the existing parameters of dropping bombs and torpedoes or launching rockets. These ships deserve a different, more interesting fate, but it will take some time to make that happen. When can we expect these new branches? We are currently focusing all our attention on the mechanics themselves and the balance of these initial strike carriers. After the rework is done we will start work on these alternative branches. To give you a perspective of what the future might look like, here are screenshots of the American and Japanese tech trees: The state of the branches of the new aircraft carriers at the time of the carrier rework release (note that the information is preliminary): IJN tech tree USN tech tree Estimated state of the branches of new aircraft carriers by the time of the introduction of alternative carrier branches (note that the information is preliminary) IJN tech tree USN tech tree
  4. With the new update they made US carriers the top of the food chain again, starting at ranger I believe, you gain access to a 1/1/2 rather than a 1/1/1 that was standard for everything. But you can’t swap in for a 2/0/1 anymore, as the drawback of this new update. But it will get better. At Lexington(Tier 8) you may upgrade your DIVE bombers to equip AP bombs that can deal massive damage. These bombs were on the enterprise(Tier 8 premium carrier). At tier 9 (Essex), you have a 2/1/2, which is powerfull. Drawback, and it’s a big one, the fighters for the Essex only are stock tier 8’s and you cannot get tier 9 fighters. One thing is that the torpedo bombers past Lexington STAY at tier 8, with no upgrades to 9 or 10. But of course at Essex you can still get those AP bombs with tier 9 DB. Midway is probably the most beneficial from this update as it has a 2/2/2. With stock T9 fighters that can be upgraded to T10. Course you only have tier 8 torpedo bombers, but torpedo damage does not increase with tier. And you still get those awesome tier 10 AP dive bombers. In my opinion. Go USN as the AP bombs wreck havoc against most battleships and some cruisers, and the bombs have a INSANLY SMALL targeting reticule, that can be smaller than the superstructures on most battle ships. But you only get them at tier 8 and up. Moving on. IJN, where to start. Easy way to say how the play is swarm the skies. These carriers have a really good amount of squadrons. But that comes at a cost. When IJN fighters take a squadron of USN fighters, the USN’s are going to win, as the squadron capacity for all USN carriers is 6, beating the IJN’s 4. Plus the USN planes ( all types ) do more damage and more health. But since IJN has a 2 fighter load out that puts it a 6v8. I can’t say much more because I only really made it up to Lexington and never played a IJN carrier before. But the grind to the tier 8 Lexington is worth it because when you go into the first battle with your AP bombers bought ( point, you get stock HE so then you can upgrade them to the tier above with HE OR AP ) you can deal a CRAZY amount of damage on a battleship draining almost 7/8 of its health for certain types and if you get a good hit.
  5. Those of you who played the recent CV test, surely saw that Ranger was a T6 instead of the usual T7. I read somewhere on the forum that the CV rework would also include re-balancing of ships. My theory is that they plan to do away with Bogue, "demote" Independence, Ranger and Lexington down one notch and then introduce Yorktown as the new T8. Thus: IV LANGLEY V INDEPENDENCE VI RANGER VII LEXINGTON VIII YORKTOWN IX ESSEX X MIDWAY And why stop there? IV HŌSHŌ V RYŪJŌ VI HIRYŪ VII AKAGI VIII SHŌKAKU IX TAIHŌ X HAKURYŪ I did my research of the real life specs of Akagi and Hiryu, and they are nearly identical, save for Hiryu's higher speed. My reason for placing Akagi in T7 (she was T8 during the game Alpha stage) is that, like Lexington, she was a converted battlecruiser. Also, Akagi on Tier 7 and Yorktown on Tier 8 match their premium sisters, Kaga and Enterprise, respectively. As for Wasp and Shinano, they could be released as Premiums, either for pay or for XP. So, what do you think? Plausible or laughable? ADDENDUM: What is the optimal color for all of this forum's modes? (Classic/White/Dark/Space)
  6. Ensign_Cthulhu

    Nobilium: up to my eyeballs.

    Happy Halloween, fellow WOWSers. In the dying minutes of my gameplay last night, wondering what to do, the fact that I had the Nobilium in port presented itself. And though I got my backside handed to me the last time I tried a Tier VIII carrier (in PTS), I thought "Oh come on, it's the Halloween event, team damage is switched off and I have a bunch of humans with me this time instead of PTS bots. Everyone who really needed stars out of this for RN missions has likely got them by now so I'm probably not ruining anyone's shot at a guinea; let's load up and go for it while we still can." Observations: 1) The operation is very hectic, and the swirly blinky lights around the portal make things very difficult to discern in the early stages. 2) The beams from the towers are very bright and distracting, especially where they converge on the portal, and make it hard to pick ships out as they emerge; the filth itself was less of a problem, and I found myself most easily targeting ships that were well clear of the actual gate. 3) It was very easy, with four strike squadrons running around, to lose track of who had dropped and who had not; a couple of times I called empty bombers back to try to sink stuff, there were times loaded bombers were sitting idle, and my fighters never really got used properly. (This is purely me being a carrier noob, and no reflection on either WOWS or the operation itself.) 4) Trying to manage all this and at the same time decide what was the right time to push the heal and eclipse buttons made things even more stressful. This operation really does need a carrier player who's confident enough with their ship that they can manipulate the special consumables properly. What's going to happen to this operation next year if the carrier rework is in place, I do not know. I hope they keep the special consumables usable while you are in airplane mode, or working the Nobilium is going to suck. 5) Despite all of this, I managed to sink five ships, put eight torpedoes into the Rasputin, and escape with my life. And we four-starred it, due mostly to the efforts of the surface combatants. Thank you, all of you, for carrying that load while I derped my way through. No matter how I tried, the visibility issues I mentioned above and the hectic nature of the battle meant that I could not locate the Great Gorgon in order to attack it, nor did anyone else manage to sink it. 6) I suspect normal carrier play at this tier, without the special consumables to manage, will be less stressful, all else being equal. Yes, you have to be somewhat unselfish as a carrier player, but having to manage a global heal and paralysis of the enemy for everybody feels like a re-run of Brady's executive monkeys. (You will of course have human opponents who are less inclined to be recklessly aggressive and will play better than the bots, but there will be fewer of them.) 7) The nature of the consumables and their importance in the battle mean that Superintendent is mandatory for all the ships in this challenge, but ESPECIALLY for the carrier player. 8) I... um... almost hope the rework doesn't go through. I could... um... almost get used to this. Just not when so many people get upset at not getting the magic five stars.
  7. Sir_Pengu1n

    The Great Gorgon

    So I recently got a 5 star match on the second Halloween mission and got the really awesome Great Gorgon camo. I already have an almost max upgraded Shokaku and read somewhere that the Gorgon camo equipped all the planes with the bat skin. However, when I went to put on the camo, the planes did not have the bat camo. Is this right? Or am I wrong that the planes get the bat camo?
  8. Wobulator

    Can't install CV CBT

    I got the invite to the CBT, so of course I tried to download it. I open the Wargaming Gaming Center, I click on World of Warships, I click on Settings, I click on Add Additional Game Instance, and nothing happens. Or rather, I get stuck with the message "Waiting for response from the server" until it times out and disappears. My internet is fine(9mb/s), but it's persistently popping this up. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
  9. super_noob_boi

    Tier 5 Aircraft Unbalanced

    lets say you`re playing an IJN cv, you try to set up a good torpedo drop on a battleship but all but one or two torpedo bombers die before they can release... then the second bombing squad also takes some losses at the same time, you try and pull them out of the aa but even more dies trying to flee, now the majority of my torpedo bombers are dead and their fighters are coming to finish the job, so you send your fighters to defend, you manage to get the enemy fighters in a dogfight above friendly cruiser aa, neither fighters strafed, so they`re dog fighting above friendly cruiser aa, you would think that you would win right? No, you lose all your fighters and only took down half of theirs. Your ship has all the upgraded modules and your commander only has two perks within the amount of time you`ve been grinding carriers. Your fighters are back in the air and you spot the enemy fighters about to engage with your other carriers fighters, so you group up and 2v1 his fighters, but he still comes out ontop and you lose two friendly fighter squadrons, and all of your fighters are now dead. That has been my experience, reguardless of tier, he could be the same tier, same ship, and my fighters always lose, and when you ask why? Because of skill points, they spent money for 10 upgrade skill points. The only reason why my fighters and bombers cant take any beatings is because they spent money on this game, my cruisers and battleships can shoot at enemy bombers all day and maybe shoot down one enemy plane, one plane, and they drop torpedoes from two squads and bomb me, and all i get is two fighters if i`m lucky. And yet other peoples planes seem to be nearly un-affected by aa. I just don`t get it. Am i missing something that magically makes my planes more tankier? makes my fighters do more damage and not die instantly? My strafing runs sometimes are pretty solid, but in a dogfight, I cant do anything but watch them die and not hit a single enemy. Or are you just going to tell me what every one else says; Git Gud... like that`s gonna magically make my planes better... American fighters... I don`t even want to try and engage them at all, but I do get more torpedoes, which are useless when said fighters destroy them all and battleship aa tears them to shreds.
  10. So I've been wondering, what the future hold for CVs especially the rework. For example, new premium ideas (that you would like to see in the game) *cough* Aquila *cough*, the population of CVs, etc... I want you guys to give your opinion, there is no wrong or right answer, just want to see what you guys think. I just want this to be a topic to share ideas, keep criticism to where it won't bring a full blown argument to where I'll need to close this topic or have to bring a moderator. *Don't mind the pictures of CVs, just wanted to decorate this topic.
  11. It definitely looks enticing for new players while also allowing the existing CV veterans to flourish. The new rocket-armed attack planes look cool as anything. My big concern, however, is that iChase says that you can dodge the long-range AA fire. This may just be me, but I'm a little worried that that will mean that Defensive Fire on cruisers like the Baltimore I just bought will be largely useless until it's too late. Otherwise, I think it looks OK.
  12. Advice for new carrier captains (tiers 4&5) and apologies for the wall of text to follow. So... you finally unlocked a CV and want to be the next Captain Chtholly (https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1027898162,ChthoIIy/ ). Well, here are some things you should know. Some would say the CV line is very broken. Very unbalanced at some tiers. And the learning curve when you get to tier 6 can be unforgiving. That's when the game gives you the opportunity to strafe with fighters and manually drop your bombs and torpedoes. And until you learn those skills you will be at a most definite disadvantage. But playing the tier 4s and 5s can be a lot of fun. Play them right and you can rack up the wins. Play them wrong and you will hear nothing but complaints from your teammates. CV's can carry a game, but just as easily lose it before it's even started. One is way more fun than the other. 1) Don't play a random battle until you've upgraded at least your fighters on the tech tree. If you don't, you'll be pwned like a wood cutting noob. So either use free XP or fight Co-op battles until you get them. 2) Buy the Air Group Modifications for your upgrades. They are inexpensive and will certainly give you the advantage over many who don't. 3) Captain skills should be Aircraft Servicing Expert, although Dogfighting Expert comes in handy for US CV's. And then Torpedo Acceleration. If you play them long enough to get 6 or 10 skill points then it's Torpedo Armament Expertise followed by Air Supremacy. 4) When the battle is loading, hover your mouse over the enemy ships to see what their AA level is. There are some ships, even at those lower tiers that will absolutely devastate your squadrons. Just avoid those ships until later in the game. 5) Your planes are on a Carrier, not an airport. Which means you can move around. Ideally you want to be in a place close enough to the action to get your planes back quickly, but far enough, not to be spotted. Also, don't forget to check how the battle is going and relocate as needed. 6) Unless you're directly under attack, your priorities should be BB, CA, DD, CV. And preferably a ship that's all alone or at least on the edge of a cluster of ships. That way you limit the amount of AA that will be brought to bare on your planes. 7) When dogfighting enemy fighters, try to engage them over your ships. It will give you the edge in what would otherwise be an even battle. 8) Watch your attack planes go in, if your target ship thinks it's your target, it will turn. Change your attack angle appropriately until you have the shot you want, otherwise it will be a wasted strike. Bombs line up straight as you can and torpedoes from the side. 9) Many DD's and CA's are very hard to torpedo if their captains are paying any attention because they have such great maneuverability, learn which ones are a waste of time to attack. Unless you're playing a IJN CV, they can come with 2 torpedo squadrons, in which case, learn to cross drop. Basically, you want them to attack at the same time, but at a 90 degree angle from each other. You don't have to worry about the angle of attack on the ship, just the timing and the angle to each other. 10) Don't use your fighters to escort your own planes. It's always a losing proposition in so many ways. If the target is that well protected, pick another one. Instead, use them to keep the other carriers planes away from yours and to spot enemy ships. 11) Yes Spot!... Spot spot spot. Especially enemy DD's. It's often worth it to use a returning DB squadron to just hover over an enemy DD that's causing your side grief until it's sunk. Your team will love you for that. 11) Don't attack ships that are about to die anyway just to get a kill. It's a waste of a strike and takes those planes out of the game for far too long while they return to rearm. But Do attack ships that have taken a lot of damage, even if they're on your avoid list as there's a pretty good chance their AA will be greatly degraded. Also, if you notice a ship has just put out a fire, go for a torpedo run. If you get a flood or two you will do tons of damage if not the kill. 12) If there are 2 CV's per side, coordinate your fighters to get air superiority. You can link your fighters to theirs or just follow manually. But as soon as they're engaged make sure you join in as fast as you can. Also, avoid the fighters that have a higher tier than yours one on one. Just press the alt key when they're on you tactical view to see what tier their planes are 13) And finally. As a tier 5 CV, you will occasionally be up against tier 6 CV's. If that's the case DO NOT link your fighters. They will get wiped every time your opponent tries to strafe your teammate. Keep your fighters close enough to your allies to help when he engages, and your strike squadrons far away. Tier 6 CV fighters can strafe for devastating results without dogfighting and can literally wipe out multiple squadrons at a time if they're in close proximity to each other.
  13. Gneisenau013

    Wargaming Anniversary

    Twenty years ago, on August 2, 1998, the Wargaming.net company was founded. We invite you to celebrate this event with us, get festive discounts and bonuses, and complete special combat missions to obtain 1 day of Premium Account time and camouflage sets! https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/august-missions-2018/
  14. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  15. I'm not sure if MM has suddenly decided that it hates me, but two thirds of my last dozen or so battles in tier 8-9 carriers have consistently paired me (who pretty much always plays solo, especially in CVs) against fishing divisions. While most of them were fairly competent carrier players in their own right (barring one in a 2-0-3 Graf Zeppelin), when divisioned up with competent AA ships, it becomes close to impossible to pull off >100k damage games. The two division mates cover one half of the map, allowing the enemy carrier to focus his fighter coverage over the other half. In essence, I am limited solely to defensive play (which becomes untenable when my teammates push into the caps and thus the AA range of enemy ships, thus forcing me to remove my fighters and allow the enemy CV to attack said pushing teammates lest I lose my fighters) and opportunistic strikes (when just about every flank of the map is covered either by AA ships or fighters, such opportunities are usually very rare and very costly to my bombers). Granted, I still ended up winning over half of them (probably because I just play defensively, spot enemy destroyers, and execute opportunistic attacks), but my damage numbers and planes shot down consistently suffer, and things like spotting don't net nearly the amount of xp and silver that damage and plane kills do. Is this just a spate of bad luck/MM, or am I going to have to adapt my tactics to account for meeting enemy fishing divisions most of the time?
  16. So maybe you're sailing a carrier and suddenly you find that your torpedo bomber's aiming pattern has magically changed from a decently narrow corridor to a wide fan that won't hit a single thing, the oval of your dive bomber's attacks has suddenly become a giant watermelon seed instead of a pin-point, and your planes are falling out of the sky faster than normal, all the while the ships you were attacking are casually dodging your attacks. What happened? Quite simply, you have fallen victim to defensive fire. Or perhaps you're a ship packing defensive AA and the enemy carrier has decided to come near you. No problem, you think, so you activate defensive fire. Unfortunately, one of the following things occurred: The enemy planes only briefly skirted around your defensive AA before heading back out of range and: attacking someone else on your team simply retreating attacking you when defensive fire is on cool-down Despite being under the effects of defensive fire, the enemy bombers still hit you for a non-negligible amount of damage (more than 1 torpedo/bomb hit) What happened? Quite simply put, you have misused defensive fire. What is defensive fire? Defensive fire is a consumable which, when used, not only increases the effectiveness of AA but also—most crucially—spreads out the attack of torpedo and dive bombers so that the torpedoes are dropped in a far more spread out pattern and the bombs are dropped over a much larger area. In both cases, the likelihood of a hit is reduced, and the CV will most likely lose more planes than normal during the attack for much less damage done. Who has defensive fire? The following ships all can possess defensive fire: All non-British and non-Italian "main-line" cruisers tier 6 and above, in exchange for hydroacoustic search All carriers tier 8 and above Italian cruisers Ships of the American light cruiser line (Dallas, Helena, Cleveland, Seattle, and Worcester) USN destroyers tier 5 and above Ships of the Russian hybrid destroyer sub-line (Ognevoi, Udaloi and Grozovoi) Loyang Hood Yubari However, in reality, there are quite a few ships that would benefit far more from having something else, so the ships that you should expect to have defensive fire (as opposed to getting close and testing them) are: All USN cruisers tier 6 and above All USN destroyers tier 9 and above All carriers tier 8 and above Russian hybrid destroyers (Ognevoi, Udaloi, and Grozovoi) Italian cruisers Hood Yubari As for the rest of the ships Some cruisers, but especially the German cruisers, will possess hydroacoustic search instead of defensive fire (this is just something you'll have to test if they're enemy ships or ask around if they're allied ships) USN destroyers tier 8 and below have to sacrifice a turret to gain defensive fire, which is a sacrifice not many are willing to make Just about every Loyang will run hydroacoustic search In addition, take note of the following (thanks to @Akeno017 for reminding me of these): USN cruisers gain an extra charge of defensive fire, and Atlanta and Flint have unlimited defensive fire (although relying on a ship to have used up all its charges of defensive fire is a terrible tactic for a CV player) Carriers have a version of defensive fire that lasts much longer, but also takes much longer to recharge and has a lower DPS multiplier (IJN CVs have a slightly higher multiplier than USN CVs, but it rarely comes into play since CV snipes at tier 8+ are rare and usually ill-advised) Destroyers gain a x4 multiplier to their AA DPS (as opposed to x3 for cruisers), but their defensive fire lasts 10 seconds less How to attack ships with defensive fire as a carrier? Well, there are a few things to note before you even consider attacking: What ships do you suspect are packing defensive fire? A Charles Martel with defensive fire is a lot less intimidating than a Cleveland with defensive fire. How many ships are packing it? It might not be a good idea to charge into the AA fire of multiple ships, even if their individual AA is mediocre. Are there any supporting ships that, while lacking defensive fire, pack good AA? A Montana might not be able to completely blunt an attack wave by itself, nor can a lone Mogami (even with defensive fire), but the two combined possibly can completely negate a strike. Are there any enemy fighters around? Even a single IJN fighter squadron can completely annihilate an entire bomber wave with the help of defensive fire, not to mention they can cut through bombers far more efficiently than ship-borne AA. How much are they paying attention to your planes? A group of enemy ships that are actively keeping their bows towards you is a lot harder to attack than a group of enemy ships engaging your own team and thus having a lot more to worry about. Can you attack later? A Des Moines at the start of the match may be a terrifying thing to try and attack, but a Des Moines that has eaten a few salvos of Conqueror's HE is much less so. In the meantime, try and find something more vulnerable, like a lone Musashi. So now you've decided one of these two things: You're going to back off and attack somewhere else You're going to attack. If you chose the second option, then a few more questions appear: Who do you attack? Do you attack all at once or delay one group? Sometimes, it's worth it to attack all at once in the following circumstances: when the enemy ships packing defensive fire in question are not particularly strong there are too many ships that are possibly packing defensive fire that waiting is not a viable tactic the enemy ship is isolated (and does not have very good AA) enemy fighters are closing; you can't delay a strike or you'll lose all your bombers you see some careless enemy sailing in a straight line, seemingly oblivious to your planes you're just trying to cause flooding in order to assist your team you've already won and you're just trying to get more damage done In this case, when attacking: make sure to go for a less maneuverable target: a Musashi is much easier to hit than a Minotaur, even when defensive fire is active go for the careless ones: it is possible to rip off over half of a Cleveland's health with Taiho's bombers even through defensive fire, but only if he's not maneuvering at all don't stick around: every second you spend readjusting a drop is not only time for the enemy AA to do its work, but also for the enemy CV to vector in fighters if you ARE confidant that you can take your time, go for the cross-drop; you'll increase the chances of an enemy blundering into one of your torpedoes In the ideal circumstance, you'll get a good number of hits on a single evading ship (like a Myoko) or you'll managed to cripple a careless enemy ship that failed to even try to evade your attacks. Here are a few examples from my time playing CVs (note that my particular gameplay style usually involves clearing out all enemy fighters before I attack): As Shokaku, I'm attacking an enemy Colorado whose escort Grozovoi is using defensive AA. The Colorado fails to turn at all when I drop, resulting in his eating three torpedoes, one of which causes a flooding. Under the fire of two Allied cruisers, he consequently burns down rather quickly, and I only lost a couple of planes. As Taiho, I attack a group of tier 7-9 ships that include a F. Der Grobe a Cleveland (who uses defensive fire), and a smattering of other ships. Instead of going for the obvious target that is the F. Der Grobe, I instead attack the Cleveland that has completely failed to turn at all. I lose about half of my attack wave, but also land 4 torpedoes on the Cleveland. As Taiho, I attack a lone Myoko. Despite his use of defensive fire, I still manage to land around 3-4 torpedoes on him due to a cross-drop and the fact that Myoko's AA is pretty bad. A special note about AP dive bombers: they are pretty much completely unaffected by defensive fire, so as long as you align their attack correctly and don't linger in the enemy AA, you should be able to reliably damage the enemy ships regardless. You can create some interesting tactics with them, forcing a Des Moines to choose between using its defensive fire on the AP dive bombers or on the torpedo bombers, for instance. However, let's say you instead determine that it's better to send in your bombers in multiple waves instead of one giant attack wave (for instance, a lone Baltimore that you know is paying attention to your planes). In this case, move your bombers near the edge of the enemy AA range. From there, send in a single dive bomber squadron to attack the enemy ship: If he uses defensive fire right then and there, simply wait out the duration of the consumable (usually 40s) and attack with everything else afterwards If he does not, attack with the lone dive bomber and move your planes into the edge of the enemy AA range If he uses it then, pull out your planes and wait out the defensive fire If he does not, then you have no choice: he will not use defensive fire until you make a serious attack (ie with torpedo bombers). Just charge in and hope for the best (like if he does not have defensive fire) How to best use defensive fire as a non-CV ship (or even as a CV)? There are four things to remember: defensive fire will only spread out an attack, not make you completely immune to it (unless you manage to completely annihilate all of the enemy bombers) defensive fire has a limited duration and a fairly long reload time defensive fire's usefulness differs by plane and nation type (USN torpedo bombers (especially from tier 4-9) are heavily affected, for instance, while Graf Zeppelin's AP dive bombers pretty much don't care at all) you are probably trading something else for it (usually hydroacoustic search); are you willing to make that exchange? Destroyers are a special case, since planes can spot them and thus negate their primary weapon (stealth), so in some cases it may be better to use defensive fire to wipe out any non-bomber planes. I'll be focusing on using defensive fire to repel enemy bombers. So, let's say you have defensive fire ready and enemy bombers are closing in. Spot the enemy bombers (seriously, you don't want your first indication of an enemy carrier's attack to be twelve torpedoes appearing on your broadside) Confirm that it is not merely an attempt to bait your defensive fire (ie either AP dive bombers—if you're a ship that is vulnerable to them—or torpedo bombers) Ideally, you should already be turning to evade the enemy bombers even before they enter your AA range. In addition, try and have some terrain around you as cover: a CV that is forced to fly directly over a Zao in order to torpedo it is going to lose a lot of planes. Try to communicate with your teammates about who will use defensive fire beforehand, so that your team can maximize the amount of time an enemy CV's planes are panicked. Try to ask your CV to send friendly fighters to assist (although the effectiveness of this tactic may vary—I know I'm personally very bad at fleet defense) Make sure the proper planes are focused by your AA (you really don't want your AA focusing on the fighters when there are torpedo bombers incoming). Wait until the enemy planes close to about 3.75-4 km before activating defensive fire (basically, they're about a third of the way into your AA aura). However, if they're attacking a teammate, you may want to use it sooner. Continue turning to properly evade their attacks as defensive fire is active (ie, turn into torpedo bombers and turn perpendicular to dive bombers). If the enemy CV tries to cross-drop, make sure to slow down and adjust your rudder to continue evading. While doing all of the above, make sure you are minimizing your vulnerability to the enemy surface ships; you don't want to have avoided a Midway's attack group only to get promptly dev-struck by a Montana instead. I hope this guide (first one I ever wrote) is helpful to you all.
  17. GreyFox78659

    The Carrier debate

    Just got to know how the forum really feels about the rework.