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


Forums

  • 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

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 80 results

  1. old_man_moo

    Carriers

    The only option for how absurdly broken and ridiculous carriers are is that this is a bug. It is clearly not intentional that a carrier can take 1/3 of your life off your ship at the start of the game before you've so much as seen an enemy ship. In fact, anyone has seen an enemy ship. It may be an equal possibility that the game developers have some sort of bug in their thinking, I'm not sure how to describe such a bug, but I can tell you it's output. The devs come up with a brilliant plan "Let's make carriers more appealing" and then subsequently forget that the entire rest of the game exists. This bug may be known as "Alzheimer's" and it should be fixed if that's the issue. Regardless, let me explain the outputs of this bug. Player downloads game that's absurdly large. Player thinks that absurdly large game will be fun. Player opens game and plays low tier game. Player decides "Hell this is fun!" Player gets anywhere near tier 4 and thus encounters carriers. Player finds out game is no longer fun because air cancer can simply not be stopped and absolutely will wreck your ship regardless of how much you spec into anti air or group together with other ships. Player gets near spending money on the game and then thinks "Why? This isn't fun". YouTubers continually comment on this bug. Devs do nothing after finding out that they can ignore the players base for a decade in World Of Tanks. I'd submit evidence for this bug, but everyone knows it exists. It'd be like submitting evidence if the game didn't load for 99% of the player base. Fix it.
  2. I think seaplane carriers would be a vary viable addition to the game. Seaplane carriers would generally be relatively small and/or slow with large aircraft with very big HP pools, but very few aircraft per squadron and only 1-2 per attack. They would have weaker bomb and torpedo armaments, and weak/few/no fighters. Their primary armament would be very large aircraft spotting ranges and ASW planes. The best three nations to have them, is the US, Japan, and maybe Britain. US: US seaplane tenders would be slower, with planes that have very high HP pools, sometimes up to twice their aircraft carrier' counterparts HP pool, They would either have leval bombing with SAP bombs, or they would dive at a slight angle and attack with HE Ships: Hull C Langley upgrade would lead into the US seaplane tender line, switching from the pre-refit Langley to its seaplane carrier form. She would have one squadrons of NC-11 bombers, with one squadron of 4 bombers attacking in groups of 2 with each bomber carrying 4 250 SAP bombers in a level bombing capacity with 2,000 HP, and one squadron of 2 bombers, with 1 per attack with each bomber carrying 4 HE bombs, attacking in a slight dive. The bombers would have 2,250 HP She would also have one squadron of 4 SOC Seagull ASW plans, with 1,265 HP each The first Seaplane Tender would be USS Wright AV-1 at tier V She would carry 4 P2Y-1 bombers that attack in groups of 1, each plane would carry 2 1000lb SAP bombs which deal 2,220 HP each, and each bomber has a speed of 98 kts, and 2,750 HP each She would also carry 4 P2Y-1 bombers that attack in groups of 1, each plane would carry 6 250 HP bombs which deal 1,950 HP each, and each bomber has a speed of 103 kts, with 2,825 HP each She would also carry SOC-3 ASW planes with 1,500 HP each and , These can be Upgraded to OS2U-1 ASW planes with 1,750 HP each. The ship would go 15.3 kts, and have 2 5in/38 caliber DPAA guns, 2*AA 3 in/50 caliber AAA guns, 2 .50 caliber AA guns The Second Ship in the line would be the USS Curtiss, AV-4 at tier VII She would carry 4 P2Y-3 bomber is attack groups of 2, each bomber carrying 4 500 lb HE bombs dealing 3,760 HP each, each bomber has a speed of 106 kts, and 3,120 HP each.These can be upgraded to either PBY-3 bombers with either 4 1000lb HE bombs, or 4 1000lb SAP bombs, HE bombs do 4,500 HP each, the SAP bombs deal 5,250 HP damage each. She will also have PBY-3 Torpedo bombers that carry 2 Mark 8 torpedoes that deal 4,765 damage each. She also carriers 4 SC-1 Seahawk ASW bombers with 2,000 HP each She would go 20 kts and carry 4*5/38 DPAA guns and 4*4 40 mm AA guns The Third ship in line would be the tier IX AVD Childs She would carry one squadron 6 PBM-1 bombers attacking in groups of 2 carrying 2 2,000lb SAP bombs dealing 10,500 HP per hit with each plane having 6,265 HP each and a speed of 125 kts. She would carry another squadron of 6 PBM-1 bombers attacking in groups of 2 carrying 2 Mark 13 torpedoes dealing 6,500 HP per hit with each plane having 6,500 HP each and a speed of 115 kts. She also carries 6 SC-2 Seahowk ASW bombers with 2,250 HP each She goes 25 kts and carriers 2*3/50 DPAA guns and 5 20 mm AA guns as well as Depth Charges and 5 km detectibility range Please comment any suggestions that you believe to be helpful
  3. SweetBabyRuth

    Russian Bias

    If wargaming wants to keep its Russian bias, the tech tree Russian ships need buffed ASAP! With the changes to the commander skill tree, and the game meta now being shifted to torp boats, A/J line BB sniping and FDRs, short range specialized ships that are can tank a lot of damage a straight up bad. The only viable ship from the Russian navy is well.... Slava, and maybe Slava, oh and Slava. Even Smolensk doesn't really make sense when everything is already outside of 19 kilometers. So WG, if you care so much about your Russian ships, then you probably should buff them, or else there will be no reason to play them... even on the RU servers.
  4. ***PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING*** Ok looke this poll isn't to ascertain if you liked the old CV style or not but am asking for its general functionality. I understand RTS CV is really OP but I want to gather information about what players prefer because I want to try to make a case to WG about this. RTS wasn't perfect but it was more functional and more playable than whatever we got. I fly planes IRL and its easier than this crap of a play style we now have. I understand its an arcade and not a Simulation anymore but I want the old game I love back. Where a random kitakami would show up in the wild and kill both your team and the enemy because holy crap it was crazy. I want a game that is more simulation-based. I'm open to suggestions on how we can improve CV battles as a whole not revert them to RTS. But I think something needs to be done to fix this nightmare of a game style CVs has become. Even if its the same you control a squadron but they all dive as one but its easier to lose planes. Not Battleships can launch an entire fighter squadron. What WG fails to realize is that this game has become more an action game with life like elements vs a decent game like it used to be. Spotter planes had weapons but were useless in a dogfight but could somewhat do something. Not have 4 planes in the air fighting Kates and Vals like they own the skies. I was in an Atlanta the other day and I got bombed like crazy I remember when cruisers were feared by CVs not another target. Also rockets really? I would have liked it better if we had manned fighters where we could chase and shoot down enemy planes. Remember please take the poll as a way of improvement not bias because one is better than the other
  5. I was afraid the FDR would totally dominate Clan Battles. Is that CV not as good as the videos make it out to be? We ran into 2 FDR's, 2 Midway's, and 8 Richtoffens. 1 Midway and 1 Richtoffen caused us some trouble. The FDR seemed to just shed planes left and right. My Halland got hit 4 times. Once by a midway and 3 times by Richtoffen. .... I feel the Carriers give unfair vision and attempt to control the map. We found a combination that seems to give us an advantage. We won 5 out of 7... .... So i say send me the planes, it's just unfair I can't get Air Defense awards.... 37 FDR planes from my Halland.
  6. INSISTO CON LO MISMO: LOS PORTAAVIONES NIVEL 8 ESTÁN PINTADOS !!!!! LOS AVIONES NO POSEEN NINGUNA RESISTENCIA Y SALUD !!!!! LOS AVIONES NO PUEDEN ACERCARSE A LOS BARCOS NIVEL 8 - 9 Y 10 !!! AUNQUE ESTÉN SÓLOS ... ACOMPAÑADOS ... CON O SIN MONTAÑAS .... ETC!!!!
  7. With the Indian Celebration a couple of weekends ago and the request for Indian ships in WoWS, I was reminded that at one point the subcontinent was part of the Commonwealth (and still participates in the Commonwealth Games). I would like to propose a new Commonwealth Tech Tree that contains mostly real ships in all four of the classes from Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Characteristics: It is already established that the Commonwealth tech tree ship characteristics already include the creeping smoke generator, as well as both HE and AP for their main guns. For additional characteristics, I think it is appropriate that they be given an anti-submarine specialization once subs become part of the regular matchmaking. This can be approximated by giving all ships Depth Charges and an improved anti-sub Hydroacoustic Search Consumable. Aircraft carriers would have access to a squadron that could drop depth charges on top of Subs that they encounter. Cruisers: These will be Light Cruisers with better than average concealment and lower than average HP. Tier 1 - (AUS) Warrego (Grimsby-class) A sloop that provided escort duties in WWII. Provided some defence during the bombing of Darwin in 1942. Slow at 16.5 knots, it has three 4-inch guns so it will probably fit the RoF at Tier I, not like many people stay around at that level anyways... Tier 2 - (AUS) Pioneer (Pelorus-class) Built in 1897, transferred to Australia and commissioned in 1913, saw more actual combat than any other Australian ship of WWI, capturing several German merchants and helping blockade German East Africa. A bit slow, but should be serviceable at this tier. Tier 3 - (CAN) Aurora (Arethusa-class) Involved in the Battle of Dogger Bank in WWI, she was transferred to Canada in 1920. Became the victim of budget cuts and her equipment was cannibalized for other Canadian ships through the 1920s. Her specialty could be only 2 main guns and a lot of secondaries. However, she may be undergunned for the tier and may also be confused with the Russian Cruiser of the same name. Perhaps the Sydney and Adelaide should both be moved down one Tier with something else (paper ship?) to replace at Tier V. Alternately, choose: (CAN) Niobe (Diadem-class) Commissioned in 1898, was transferred to Canada in 1910 as one of the first ships of the new RCN. Reassigned as a depot ship partway through WWI, she was damaged in the Halifax Explosion of 1917. She has a lot of guns, similar to St Louis. Tier 4 - (AUS) Sydney (Chatham-class) Commissioned in 1913, she defeated SMS Emden at the Battle of Cocos. Had Depth Charge chutes, so would be good for Anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Tier 5 - (AUS) Adelaide (Birmingham-class) Similar to Sydney but with an extra main gun. Might be a too-highly tiered, but WG can probably tweak the design to fit at this level. Tier 6 - (NZL) Achilles (Leander-class) The legend. Similar to Perth. (AUS - Premium) Canberra (County-Class) This would be the one Commonwealth Heavy Cruiser option, with characteristics similar to Devonshire/London but with crawling smoke. Or maybe can fit it at Tier VII if the smoke makes it that survivable. Tier 7 - (PAK) Babur (Dido-class) Originally HMS-Diadem which covered convoys and raided german shipping routes in WWII, transferred to Pakistan in 1956 and participated in the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971. This class would have a similar performance profile to the Atlanta/Flint cruisers, so should fit at this tier. It was small, so should have the best concealment at it's tier and small HP pool to match. There might be an option to add the variant that had 5 turrets instead of 4. Tier 8 - (CAN) Ontario (Swiftsure-class) Commissioned for the RCN in 1945, she was too late to see service in the WWII Pacific theatre and had a relatively uneventful career. It has the same guns a Fiji with one less turret, but more secondaries. Since it wouldn't be a clone, there is leeway to make it's specs that would fit at this tier. If the original main battery RoF is too slow, have the ability to research and mount the Neptune guns to increase RoF. Tier 9 - (IND) Mysore (Crown Colony-class) Acquired by India in 1957, she served as flagship of the Western Fleet and commanded the missile attack on Karachi Harbour during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Granted this is an uptiered Fiji, but having access to both Slot 5 and 6 upgrades (possibility of improved concealment and RoF) should keep it competitive with other Tier IX CLs. If WG really wants to, maybe give it an option to upgrade the main battery and torpedos to Neptune guns/torps so it will be squishy offset by high DPM. Tier 10 - (???) Commonwealth (Minotaur-class?) May as well use the RN TX design here, but could make a complete new design (not like many of the TX ships were ever real anyways). But should still have both HE and AP, Crawling Smoke, and ASW options instead of radar. Destroyers: These will be similar to RN DDs, with crawling smoke, Depth Charges, and improved ASW Hydro. Tier 2 - (CAN) Patrician (M-class) WWI destroyer transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy in 1920. Tier 3 - (CAN) Vancouver (S-class) Acquired from RN in 1927, ended up used as a training ship. Tier 4 - (AUS) Stuart (Scott-class) A Flotilla Leader purchased from Britain in 1933, saw action throughout the Mediterranean and Pacific during WWII. Tier 5 - (CAN) Saguenay (River-class) Active in the Atlantic duing WWII, survived a torpedo hit and a ramming before eventually serving as a training ship until the end of the war. Tier 6 - (IND) Rajput (R-class) Originally HMS Rotherham and used in WWII, she was transferred to the Indian Navy in 1949 and saw active service in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Tier 7 - (AUS) Norman (N-class) Commissioned for the RAN in 1941, she was active in the Indian and Pacific oceans and was involved in freeing Burma, the Madagascar campaign, and Battle for Okinawa. Tier 8 - (CAN) Athabaskan (Tribal-class) This ship was built to replace the original Athabaskan that was sunk in the English Channel while operating with her sister ship HMCS Haida. Note that the Guns are 4x2 102mm, differing it both from the Haida and Cossack. Tier 9 - (PAK) Khaibar (Battle-class) Originally HMS Cadiz, she was sold to the Pakistani Navy in 1956 and was sunk during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war by Styx anti-shipping missiles from Indian Fast Attack Craft. Tier 10 - (AUS) Vendetta (Daring-class) Commissioned in 1958, she had a relatively quiet career except for providing naval gunfire support during the Vietnam War. Carriers: To differentiate these CVs from others in the game, they should have an ASW-aircraft option. Crawling smoke might be fun on this as well. Additionally, these could pioneer a Light Carrier concept: Being a CV with only 2 squadrons available instead of 3, with faster regeneration and captains can choose what squadron types they want on board (flexibility for the Captain, uncertainty for the opponent). Another option is to design them like regular CVs, but with smaller squadron sizes that regenerate faster. Or just have higher tier Aircraft available. Tier 4 - (CAN) Puncher (Ruler-class) Mostly a Bogue by any other name. A bit of a cheat, was run by the RN but crewed by Canadians. Tier 6 - (AUS) Vengeance (Colossus-class) WWII carrier that didn't see active service, she was loaned to the RAN from 1952 until 1955 then sold on to Brazil and renamed Mineas Gerais. Propeller aircraft included the Fairey Firefly and Hawker Sea Fury. Tier 8 - (CAN) Magnificent (Majestic-class) It was this ship or the HMCS Bonaventure, but this seems to fit better at its tier and the Bonnie only ever operated jet aircraft. Participated in transporting Peacekeeping forces to Port Said during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Aircraft are later generation Firefly and Sea Fury. Tier 10 - (IND) Viraat (Centaur-class) Originally the HMS-Hermes that participated in the Falklands Conflict. This is a real stretch as it operated early versions of jet aircraft and I don't know what type of aircraft complement WG would want to give it, but this could be the one carrier that gets jets (Sea Vixens and Buccaneers) and ASW prop-job Gannets. I'm not sure what else could fit at Tier X. Battleships: Not much choice here, as really there was ever only one class. Tier 5 - (NZL - Premium) New Zealand (Indefatigable-class) This Battlecruiser was paid for by the New Zealand government but spent most of it's time defending Britain During WWI. She participated in the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank, and Jutland. Much more interesting history than her sister ship, HMAS Australia. Some might say this should be Tier IV, but Tier V is the breakpoint for a lot of directives and matches what WG did with the Viribus Unitis.
  8. When you go through carrier mechanics, you know, perhaps some QA testing and such, be sure to turn a keen eye (or two) on the behavior of various bomb drops. You can pull a maneuver with your aircraft more than a second ahead of release - and yet the bombs go flying off to a completely different direction. I'm pretty sure you guys are aware of this behavior. Aside from AA too thick to see through and those damnable pauses when an AA envelope is opened up the first time, I'd say the gravity-defying bombs are the most irritating aspect of playing carriers. If a plane pulls a hard turn, then lines up and drops while not in a turn, those bombs should not be carrying around unspent inertia which causes them to leap out from under the planw on the previous path of the hard turn. Nope. Now if the plane is IN a turn and releases bombs, sure, I'd expect those bombs to go off course - some - but not a country mile. Know what I mean? Then too... there are carrier planes you can fly in a completely straight path, do nothing to alter speed or course, just release ordnance and what the?! Where are they going!? Thanks for taking a closer look at bomb drop mechanics.
  9. TheGreatBlasto

    Warped? Really? Now what?

    Just noticed my Big E is warped. Note how the flight deck bulges outwards on the port side adjacent to the island. Can't tell if the hull is as well. It's only been in about 5 COOP games. I think Mr. WeeGee owes me a new Enterprise.
  10. TheGreatBlasto

    Carriers & Superintendent

    Ok, I'm brand spanking new to CVs with just two: Weser and Ark Royal. I've been looking at recommended captain specs on the WOWS wiki and have noticed that superintendent doesn't appear to be a recommended skill. Is that true for all CVs?
  11. I propose a change everyone will simply love! I propose Carriers be tier matched down. T10 is of course always top tier. I don't play T10 cause of some outrageous (in my book) costs. But T10 could include 10/9 carriers Not too much then to expect T8 carriers to cover 8/7, T6 carriers 6/5 and T4 takes the leftovers. You know how many times I see a T8 battle in a T8 carrier? About as often as I see chickens flying over my city with chipmunk pilots on board. I realized the other day - often takes me a while to realize things - it wasn't the current state of AA so much that was bugging me, it was the constant up-tier actions which put T8 carriers flying T6 planes against full blown T10 AA. We have plenty of carriers, so everyone tells me. If we can't do it this way, then maybe a the tier spread for T8/6/4 carriers? Battle tiers would be (starting with T8 carriers) 9/8/7, 7/6/5, 5/4/whatever. My initial purpose in doing this would be to reduce the AA effect against up-tiered carriers. ALTERNATIVELY (and something I could easily get on board with) would be to boost up-tiered ship damage rewards!! We'd look forward to up-tiered matches then, if all up-tiered ships did more damage or were less affected by enemy weapons. Just load up a different table of damage/performance stats as the game loaded then let it rip. Can we try either of them, WoWS? tia fyc
  12. ...getting into carriers. So I finally started tooling around with the two KM carriers that were dumped into my port. All of my battles have been in a training room. Gotta be honest, I just don't see the appeal. However, I'm thinking that CVs could lift up my stats, so why not try it?. I played an old 1990s carrier game for many years (15+) where due to it being a turn-based game you had time to review reports on the state of your squadrons. For example, they would list starting number of planes (12 to 16), shot down planes, and those needing repairs before being operational again. To get maximum return on your strikes you would coordinate your strikes so that both dive and torpedo bombers arrived at the target at the same time. This meant launching the slower torpedo bombers 30 to 60 minutes earlier depending on the distance involved. If the target was close enough, you could also provide fighter escort. In addition every morning at 6 AM when the sun came up you had to look at your number of available fighters and decide how many would be allocated to cap. Here in WOWS, there's none of that. It's like a first shooter game. Pew pew pew! Or am I missing something?
  13. Every time I find myself in a game without any sky cancer, I thank my lucky stars!
  14. 4, 6 and 8 tiers are just plump full of carriers. Yes, I know there's a new line release. About the only time I feel a two CV per team battle is okay is when those two CVs have been uptiered two tiers. Sort of like two tier 8 cvs make up one tier 10 cv. But as a CV player, any other situation is really not much "fun". The surface ships are often just stomped like roaches on the floor of your kitchen in the dark of night. I'm seeing some real rollovers to be sure. Knowing this was coming, I sort of hoped something might have been planned to mitigate the damage. Aside from banning cvs, la de dah... maybe some type of rotation per player during the first week or two? The bot concept has value too, as long as the supplement is only say, two max per team, maybe? But stepping out of the anti-cv box many of you find yourself within, think about the bigger picture. We always go through this stuff every new type, sometimes every new ship. Do you feel there's a need to address the release of new product so the impact is minimalized? tia fyc
  15. 07Beast109

    French Cvs

    Has anyone heard any talk about French Carriers, coming in game anytime. Since the French did actually build some CVs
  16. The Consumable Idea: I would like to suggest something that could help bring a bit more skill to the CV Vs Surface ship interaction system. Just to clarify this is not about the spotting capability of the CV. That requires a rethink and evaluation from WG which I have heard they might be doing. This is mostly about the damage mitigation for the surface ship when under direct attack from the CV squadrons. So, we all know that CVs have some major advantages in the Squadron vs Surface ship interaction and more changes to AA would result in CVs becoming increasingly more frustrating to play and reducing the damage of their ordinance is not something that CV players would like to see happen (if anything I hope this idea could see the damage increased some) as it would simply make them even less appealing to play. To that end, I would like to propose the creation and addition of a consumable that would effectively reduce the damage taken and fire/flood duration if it is used just before the ordinance hits the ship. The effect would last 2 to 4 seconds (length depending on balancing and possible captain skills) and it would have 2 to 3 charges that reset after a short cool down to deal with more than one attack run of the current squadron. If triggered after the ordinance hits the ship the consumable would have no effect and you would take full damage and suffer the full duration of fires and floods. If you use it to soon and it runs out before the ordinance hits then it is again ineffective. If triggered just right when hit you will receive the full alpha damage calculated but the consumable would trigger a heal that would then restore 70% to 90% of that direct damage taken and also reduce any fire/flood duration's by 60% to 80% (These numbers are a suggestion they could be lower depending on balancing needs). The point behind restoring your HP instead of simply mitigating it is so that the CV player still gets credit for the damage they inflict and are not simply crippled by an easy to use consumable which is only there to increase quality of life for surface ship players which is what this consumable would do in terms of constant airstrike focus while feeling like you can do nothing. The whole idea behind the consumable is you would be telling your crew to brace for and prepare to recover from incoming airstrike damage. This puts your crew at the ready and the result is you taking the damage but your crew responds with a restoration of your HP overtime and also controls fires set quicker than normal. True the biggest issue with CVs is not its own strikes but the proliferation of constant HE spam at targets not able to handle it when the CV spots it but, a lot of complaints are about a CV taking 50% of a destroyers HP with a wave of attacks or even 1 strike no matter how hard they try to avoid it and this consumable would reduce that. The Squadron Spotting issue: When it comes to the spotting that a CV squadron can do the largest issue is that for most ships it can spot a target at ranges that makes that targets AA basically pointless allowing for permanent spotting of the target without the risk of losing aircraft. This most often hurts destroyers that are on their own, trying to cap, or trying to sneak around on a boarder, or are simply trying to get close to spot. This has been done so that the squadron is not being fired on by an invisible ships AA which is how it should be. However, the target should not become visible to other members of the CVs team unless the squadron has gotten within highly dangerous AA range so that staying in that range is a high risk for the squad. This way the CV is risking the lose of its aircraft which do not reload quick enough to simply be wasted by sticking around in this more dangerous AA zone to keep the target spotted. This would reduce the constant spotting of ships that require stealth to mitigate damage and provide some level of comfort. TLDR: Consumable: HP recovery and flood/fire duration reduction from Airstrikes Works for 2 to 5 seconds has 2 to 3 charges (for multiple strikes from a single squadron) that reset after a 15 to 30 second cool down (So it has to be triggered just before being hit by rockets, bombs or torps) Triggers a heal that restores 70% to 90% direct damage taken from a strike (numbers could be lower depending on balancing) Reduces flood/fire duration by 60% to 80% (numbers could be lower depending on balancing) Squadron spotting: Make it so a CV squadron can spot the ship as normal for the CV but the enemy ship is not visible to your team unless the squadron is close enough to be at risk from AA of the enemy ship. We are talking about being in strike distance where the AA should be the most dangerous to the Aircraft unless they are in an attack run. Both changes together should make playing most ships a much better experience and even allow CVs to be given back a stronger strike potential while being more at risk of losing striking capability just to spot a target. They could also bring changes to make playing a CV more forgiving without making a team suffer because their CV player is not as good at the spotting game. Thank you for reading
  17. If you see me in your match, on your team, know that I see my carrier's role playing out like this... I play my match. Which is, I initially locate the majority of the red team. My main targets are cruisers then battleships then carrier. I put destroyers LAST on my target list. There is far too much time involved by carrier aircraft to locate, target and attack destroyers. At least for me. Oh, if an opportunity pops up smack in front of me, I might take it - but... Destroyers are not my job. Destroyers are the job of cruisers, failing then battleships. I prefer to spend time attacking destroyers only when there are no other available targets or they are too close to myself or supporting ships. If the ship type designed to hunt and kill destroyers cannot do it then there is a balance issue. If they choose not to do it, that is there (your) choice but it does not make them MY job, my responsibility, my targets. So, when you see Herr Reitz playing a carrier, you now know my target priorities. tia and have fun out there. How do fellow CV drivers see it?
  18. Hello everyone, i tried to search for info regarding those ships but coudnlt find. Is there a way to get Essex? Will it be available again? Is Enterprise listed to come back at least in rumors? How much time she was offered? She came again some time after beeing removed? How many times? Prediction regarding German carriers tree? I mainly like to play carriers, so i am trying to get every single one of them. There are some ships i see on blitz but i want to get in here as i mainly play on wows not blitz. Why people call Aircraft Carriers as CV and not AC?
  19. TheGreatBlasto

    ETA for Canadian Carriers?

    Canada had 3 CVs post war. Not many know this. Scuttlebutt has the launch date around 2029-30. https://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/navy/galery-e.aspx@section=2-F-4.html
  20. First off, I would like to point out that this is my opinion of Carriers in Clan Battles. I know that there have been countless posts concerning this topic, but I would like to give my two cents on it as well. Secondly, I would like to point out that I am a relatively experienced carrier player. Personally, as someone who played the Aircraft Carrier this past season for my clan, I really hope they do not add Aircraft Carriers to the competitive setting anymore. Let me explain: Since the beginning of clan battles, the majority of the challenge was guesswork and positioning. DDs provided spotting for their team. Cruisers would be there to flank, crossfire, and hold down positions, and Battleships would be there to try and counter those cruisers. With carriers in clan battles. It really shifts the meta from what I know and love, to something else. This season with the inclusion of carriers, it really shifted from guesswork and positioning, to who can wear the other team down faster. Most if not all teams took DFAA over Hydro. The only ships you really saw at storm-hurricane were Stalingrad, Venezia, Hakuryu, and maybe sometimes a battleship with a Halland. Because every ship took DFAA, it made it really challenging for the carrier. At the same time, It was equally frustrating for the 6 other ships on the team who were on the receiving end of the carrier's strikes. (sidenote: there was a joke going around that the number 25,500 was implanted into any person's mind who were playing Stalingrad/Moskva/Des Moines) I would like to point out that playing destroyer in this past clan battles season, was more of a liability than an advantage. But that is not even the main weapon of the CV this past season. Forgetting what carriers are in Random battles, the spotting ability of the carrier in clan battles is a huge advantage. In a typical clan battles season, if a cruiser makes a mistake, and loses a lot of HP, the cruiser could disengage and heal up. This season, if a cruiser tried to run, it was focused down. So making mistakes were more easily punished. The spotting of the carrier made it impractical to hold a position by an island because dive bombers could do critical damage to a cruiser trying to do that (specifically Stalingrad). Finally, I would like to conclude this post with a suggestion for wargaming. Please don't add carriers into clan battles, and bring back the 8v8 2 battleship clan battles. I think many people can agree that that clan battles season was one of the best.
  21. Announcement! Italian Battleships! Yes, they are finally here! A whole new line of ships representing the Nation of Pasta Primavera! Italian battleships fire a unique kind of shell: Semi-armor piercing (SAP). This type of shell has a much greater chance of penetrating armor than a normal HE shell, but not quite as good as a true AP shell. However, the new SAP shells come with a 75% chance of starting a fire! Also, while Italian battleships are not as heavily armored as their contemporaries, they have a top speed of 38 knots, making them quite hard to hit while moving and allowing them to outrun most other battleships. We are proud to introduce Tier V Spaghetti, Tier VI Spaghetti and Meatballs, Tier VII Alfredo, and Tier VIII Alfredo con Pollo. Stay Tuned for More! GAME BALANCE CHANGES BATTLESHIPS AP shells are more skill-demanding for successful use than HE shells, but their efficiency is higher, if used correctly. The updated battleships constitute a relatively novel class in the game since they were almost exclusively used for shore bombardment and sea escort, and most players have been using them to delete other ships such as cruisers in a single salvo. Consequently, the overall damage dealt by this type of armament has become too high. We, therefore, decided to systematically lower the maximum damage of AP shells, but without lowering their penetration. All battleship AP shell damage will be lowered by 30%. We will watch independent performance of the ships and take additional action if needed.
  22. First time post to the forum sry in advance if this is out of place. Like many I'm sure myself and my clan participated in clan season with tier 10 CV's included in the game and like most people we found it disappointing that the power of the aircraft carriers seems unbalanced. I can understand some people's feelings but I personally dislike the CV'S but I can understand their role in the battle, I'd like to put forward a alteration the could be implemented into the be game specifically for carriers. Carrier spotting could be modified to only show general locations of ships they come across as blips on the minimap alone much like foul weather mechanics already are implemented into the game, the Carrier would be able to spot for the team but the overwhelming firepower of the entire team could not be implemented apart from general locations and blind firing encouraging ships to push forward or retreat based on intel. I feel gameplay for carriers would not be drastically effected and better engagement for ships encouraged. Feel free to support or critique any points and we can hopefully improve the quality of the game for everyone.
  23. Herr_Reitz

    Bot carriers in PVE are stupid

    Today I rode along with a bot carrier in a PVE match. Which of course means I had already been splashed by the reds. Sort of on purpose. I wanted to see what the carrier did with its planes. Not much really. Flew past red BBs then dropped torps far too close to the target, not once, but three times. IMO, having such a ship playing is really worse than not having it play. Oh, I realize they are there for folks to get the shoot-down credits but seriously, put a little bite into those teeth. By the way... one of the reasons I enjoy playing CVs has to do with the battle view you get. There is not a lot of free-time with a carrier, but wow do you get to see a lot. Far too many players showing broadsides. Folks pushing when they (probably) know better. The clusters are interesting too... as if indecision were a tropical storm that has trapped three or four players together. But back to topic... I for one would like a little bit more "battle awareness" plugged into bot carriers please. What do you think? tia
  24. I'm not sure where to report this and I could not find a way to put in a ticket regarding this, but the dive bombers on Ryujo carry no ammo underneath their wings. Instead, their AP bombs are attached to the white colored rocket planes (along with the rockets). Can someone in the graphics department fix this? Here are some screenshots to show what I am talking about: Where are the AP bombs? There should be one big one. Here are the rocket planes with rockets and... an AP bomb also or an extra gas tank? I think it is an AP bomb and it was moved to the wrong plane a few months ago. Does anyone know who might be the right person to contact about this? Thanks!
  25. So a new Meta has been thrust upon us. Last season it was the KLEBER wolf packs... Then the KLEBER gets nerfed. Now we have the Venezia menace. A Hak to spot, A Yoshino for long range support, and 5 Venezia to laugh at your AP. ..... So this brings a few questions to mind. When will the Venezia be nerfed? What kind of nerf will it be? Will any changes come to AA balance to counter the strong carrier? Or, will the Haland be nerfed due to high AA efficiency? ..... Now to the future: The new heavy/light Russian cruisers will be in the next season. Will they dominate? What will be their counter? Will we see carriers again in next season? ...... Observation: Not really seeing a lot of British Heavy cruisers, nor many Hallands.
×