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
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

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 81 results

  1. hello, i was noticing that the superstructures of the yorktown, enterprise and honter are different. however she has observed that the enterprise has almost the same superstructure as the hornet. And well, I would like WG to apply those changes to the Enterprise so that it looks historic.
  2. chessblaster

    An Attempt at CV Balance

    A perhaps doomed notion from the start given how WG reacts to player feedback, but this is a serious attempt at ideas to bring carriers into line with the rest of surface ships in game. I add that these are opinions based on my own experiences in game and as such welcome other peoples input on the matter. To preface there will be a few topics not addressed in this post namely: 1. Ship AA, this is a suggestion of changes to CVs and their Squadrons not to the AA of all ships. That is a topic for another post. 2. Return to RTS, all suggestions here will remain within the confines of the 8.0 update and beyond as it is wholly unrealistic to expect WG to undo such a radical change in game mechanics of a class. Let's begin this in a (relative) order of immediate problems: Squadron Regeneration: This is quite possibly the worst offender (besides spotting) of destroying any attempt at balancing this class. No matter what tweaks are made to plane health or damage output cannot overcome the fact that planes come back after dying. This creates a negative loop of players feeling helpless when they shoot down airplanes and it feels as though nothing is accomplished by it, when the carrier is replacing a lost aircraft every minute. So the most radical idea on this post shall be the removal of the plane regeneration mechanic. Being able to know that an Aircraft Carrier has 20 torpedo bombers total, and only 20, will be a monumental change in both the attitudes of the carrier player and those they are attacking, with each aircraft shot down actually contributing to removing the CVs striking capabilities from the game. Carriers will do less early strikes and instead focus on scouting caps and preserving squadrons for meaningful attack runs that impact the game state. For balancing purposes WG can look into adding aircraft to certain squadrons to account for the lack of regeneration, or to increasing HP of squadrons themselves. Spotting: This won't be nearly as long since WG has announced it is testing out changes to carrier spotting mechanics. This is more of an endorsment of the Radio Spotter concept, that requires that aircraft be within a set distance of allied ships in order to spot a hostile ship. I would only add that there should be difference distances required based on the ship class with dds having to be the closest with far more leeway being given to BBs. Fighters: As little interaction as the currently is between surface ships and aircraft carriers; there is arguably less between the carriers themselves. Fighter squadrons when not upgraded are used mostly as spotter craft since they do not stop most attack runs, either because the squadrons attack from too far away (skip bombs) are too fast to lock on (Hakuryu, Immelman, Richtoven,), or actively have mechanics that render fighters nigh on useless (Nakimov). Simply put fighters need to be more dangerous on baseline with an increase of radius of around 20% (the increase that the 2 commander skills combined grant) and a reduction of lock on time of about 40% (half of what the commander skill Lightning Reflexes grants). Skills such as interceptors and increased fighter consumables per squadrons should remain the same but the fighters as a baseline should be far more dangerous to attacking aircraft. Normalization of Mechanics: CVs should detonate, I don't like the detonation mechanic but it is in the game and so long as it is everyone should suffer equally, no exceptions. The fire mechanics of cvs are inexplicably odd, only lasting a few seconds with a damage control party that is on autopilot and has a 1 minute action timer. To simply this needs to be rendered as a BB fire system with a BB damage control party. There is now the ability to map buttons on the equipment list so there is no reason that a carrier player cant use DCP while using their aircraft. These are my current suggestions to WG and while I did start this article by saying this is perhaps doomed from the beginning. I enjoy this game enough to post this and try.
  3. Anyone have any success with this carrier? It's a carrier bought for coal. But Its planes get absolutely slaughtered on attacks in tier 8-tier 10 games, even avoiding dense AA clustered ships and going after the stragglers. There is a squadron heal, but that's rather pathetic. plane speed and hit points look fine on the stats. Armor, damage reduction, captain skills......I tried changing them around, but nothing seems to work. Is it just another case of wg throwing in a fantasy ship and planes and adding the good old russian bias they have? Is the carrier supposed to be a secondary build and charge into the fray as a brawler? Sure, the squadrons are large, and you can do the trick of attacking twice to save the squadron numbers and go suicide attack with just 4 planes, which may not make it through the AA to even get a shot off. Not sure why wg cannot do anything decent except the graphics. Waiting for them to add gold AP rounds and nerf HE, so it's more like the messed up WOT game. Maybe add MTB's and PT boats to give it the face paces (wheeled) aspect like in wot.They put in subs and look how messed up those are. No subs back in WW2 could go as fast as a DD or cruiser on the surface. They were dead slow underwater also. Also, the ping mechanic is pretty bad. What's next, magnetic torps? Not sure why anyone would spend $ on a game so questionable like this. No good software company would pull this sort of stuff and stay in business.
  4. Obviously there’s lots of complaining about CV’s and now submarines. How there’s really no way to defend against them. And yes this is something of a response to LWM's posts on this sub forum. First, we have to accept that anyone who advocates changing CVs and AA to make it feel less like inevitable doom is advocating making CVs weaker. You’re talking about undermining a business model that involves adding new ships to the game. So 99.9% of calls for changes are nonstarters. Any call for gameplay where surface ships can defend as effectively against air strikes as used to be the case when carrier play was more RTS, with limited and vulnerable air groups, will lower the number of carrier players. This is a nonstarter. Insofar as carrier or sub play is ‘boring’ compared to surface ships, it can only be compensated by having these vessels be more powerful. In other words, the defenselessness of surface ships is inevitable if subs and cvs aren’t seen as intrinsically interesting by themselves. But I’m not here to complain about the game or the business model. I’m going to propose a solution that won’t gradually attrit players from the game whilst also allowing WG to keep CVs, subs, and possibly new gimmicks to the game and players having good reasons to use them other than mercilessly bulling those who don’t: My proposal is to make *all* Carrier strike groups and Submarines operate as consumables for surface ships, but unlike regular consumables, these consumables have their own tiers & tech trees with credit and experience requirements to unlock as if they you were going down a tech tree. Carriers and Subs cease to exist as a separate class of warship. In such a system It's possible that some surface ships might go without either sub or air strikes, maybe in exchange for more powerful surface consumables. But I envision in the long run a majority of players in matches will be using 1 or several different type of aircraft. I also envision a degree of variety in consumable selection both between and within ships to allow for customization and differential but overlapping point of focus. This already exists to some extent for the air dropped depth charges and the Dutch cruisers. But I would put back in the ability to manually aim the squads. I’m going to first list the pros (and cons) then describe how I imagine each ‘class’ of consumable working and also how surface ships might counter say consumables. Pros: Because carriers and subs are no longer a dedicated class, there’s no business need to ‘balance’ the whole consumable against surface ships, let alone make the consumables stronger than the ships themselves. You only need to: 1. Make the consumable strong enough to be useful in certain situations 2. Make the consumables balanced against each other. This means that *actually* strong AA ships are no longer an issue. From WG’s perspective this solves the problem of getting people to play carriers and subs, everyone will essentially be playing these to some degree (most likely) much more than they are currently. Sub and Carrier consumables can theoretically be used after the main surface ship has been destroyed, giving players another way to continue participating after the match has ended. Surface ships that are currently lackluster can be buffed with better sub/strike consumables, again, in a way that doesn’t compromise WG’s business model. Corollary to the above; If you’re a low tier in a high tier game, it’s possible to have the imbalance compensated with by the consumables scaling to the tier of the match rather than the tier of the ship. This gives WG a way to incorporate naval aviation for countries that did not have any carriers, since the ’carrier’ aspect is less relevant. (I’ll describe how WG can still use carriers as gameplay elements) Cons: Players who don’t like aircraft or subs in general may dislike feeling obliged to use them to be competitive. One solution is to think about how to balance the existing consumables to allow for a ‘pure surface ship’ that is stronger. (like shorter CD consumables or more charges in exchange for no air wings and such) Potential for excessive micromanagement and multitasking, especially at the very competitive level. Catapult aircraft will need to be rebalanced around this, since my suggested system makes it possible for a surface ship to defend itself with fighters that are pulled from outside the map. Aircraft spotting will likely need to be removed or changed so that destroyer-as-scout is not 100% undermined. Insofar as manual dropping is concerned this system may inadvertently favor battleships and slow ROF ships in general that can multitask by microing their consumables in between salvos. This may lead to a need to return of ‘premium consumables’ Matchmaker will need to account for difference in potential punching power between two ships of the same tier one of which has not upgraded their consumables yet. In my mind only the micromanagement requirement is an unavoidable con to my proposal. How would it work? In theory it could work a number of ways but I’m going to describe how I imagine it. The most important thing is that the consumables approach makes this (or any) balancing feasible. Re-read the first two paragraphs if you have to. Aircraft: > Your surface ship might have 1 or several classes of aircraft, with numerical indicators (A/B) where A is number of aircraft [or squadrons] available to be launched as a squadron and B is the number [of aircraft or squadrons] you have in total reserve. Since these craft can theoretically be launched if your surface ship is destroyed, they need to be finite in number. > Tap the hotkey corresponding to the strike group you want to send out, it will take a few seconds for that group to enter the battle group either launched via carrier or flying into the map if it is a naval aircraft not carrier launched (like a condor). Carrier aircraft might have a perk that makes the deployment period shorter. > Once the air group is in the map it can be moved RTS style on the map or via the minimap, but it can also be moved manually as is done currently. > Aircraft have a certain loiter period, i.e. how long they can remain in the zone before needing to refuel. > Super Optional: Have carriers as entities a few kilometers behind the main battle line from which your team’s carrier aircraft are launched, these don’t move can be targeted and destroyed by surface ships or even enemy strike craft (though the latter is difficult). You’d have to get well past the middle point of the map to even detect the CVs. I wouldn’t countenance CV sniping in this new system except as a way to punish an exceptionally passive enemy, but that does provides a massive incentive in any game mode to push if doing so deprives the enemy of his air consumables. Aircraft, Air Strikes, and AA: Since we’ve changed the incentives around for players and for WG, there’s no cause to either make aircraft trivially useless for the sake of surface ships or to make aircraft unstoppable death dealers. We can finally just focus on creating a dynamic between surface ships and aircraft that is tactical, hopefully fun, and modestly historically realistic. We want the consumables to work well when used well and visa versa. > Surface ship AA health (at least light and med) % is visible to all players by default this is important information because… > Medium and light AA will deal damage to any planes in its radius with no invulnerability periods granted, though damage will scale up and down depending on the type and speed of the aircraft and whether it is maneuvering. As a rule, medium and light AA will be most effective (i.e. higher damage) against torpedo bombers since they fly low and slow, but those also happen to *usually* be the aircraft that can do the most damage to ships, if they survive and lead the enemy ship properly. High health AA is much more of a lifeline for large ships and low health AA much more of a curse. > Heavy AA will be most effective against slower larger aircraft that operate at high altitudes, though heavy AA can also be used to provide cover to allied ships that would normally not be covered by medium AA. > Surface ships damaging enemy vessels superstructures are not simply about farming damage but about trying to get that ship’s passive AA low enough that torpedo bombers and the heavy damage dealers have a reasonable chance to drop before getting shot down. Though some aircraft classes may be specialized for being hard to hit for enemy AA and doing supression of enemy air defenses. > Defensive Fire consumable is replaced with the ability of certain surface ships to manually aim heavy AA flak bursts, rotating the camera around will give the direction of the flak and instead of zooming the aim in and out you raise or lower the fuse time (i.e. the distance from the ship that the flak explodes). It is easier to visualize in 2D, think of a clock with 1 hand that can shrink and grow, the center of the clock is the ship, the time of the clock is the direction the flak is aiming, and the length of the hand is the fuse time. The trick is to get the flak cloud to explode in the same spot and time that the enemy’s planes will be there. This manual flak should be far more effective than passive flak, and the goal is to encourage AA ships to actively try to shoot down squadrons aimed at teammates. I am thinking, depending on the ship, 1-3 shot chances before the ability goes on cooldown. Technically elevation and fuse time would be different things but the aiming will adjust based on what is being targeted so that players do not have to aim in 3 dimensions. > Surface defense against aircraft consists in: Strong passive AA Defensive Fire Evasion for smaller vessels Note “Just dodge” needn’t be a sarcastic jab anymore, since dodging strikes was viable during the pre-CV rework and manually aimed strikes can have their whippy turn times nerfed since, again, aircraft is no longer a class that needs to match or exceed surface ship strength. The ability to call in air wings capable of intercepting strike groups. (See aircraft classes for more details). Certain of these defenses will be more effective against certain airstrikes. > Given how many ways air strikes can be defended against, getting hit multiple times with a dive or torp bombing should be roughly as punishing as getting citadel multiple times. The existing damage levels of CVs have to somewhat account for the fact that strikes are Mostly inevitable Mostly undodgable Mostly infinite None of this will be true anymore, so it’s important to make aircraft deadlier when used correctly. Aircraft Classes: Some mentioned before Torp Bombers: Slower and more vulnerable when doing a drop but drops deal far more damage (on a per torp basis more than what they do now, but less than destroyer torpedoes). A battleship or cruiser with good AA should be capable of shooting down a wing of these guys unless the AA has been sufficiently weakened, so these planes are more meant for finishing off ships that have already had their superstructure farmed. Rocket(armed) Planes: Meant as a way of dealing with strong medium AA, since they are faster than dive/torp bombers and don’t have to come in at a low altitude they take less damage on the approach and can soften up targets. They also can survive more effectively against other fighters in dogfights. Dive Bombers: Dive bombing planes will take less damage from medium/light AA than torpedo bombers but the strikes themselves will not deal as much damage. They are effectively intermediate between the rocket planes and torp bombers Fighters: Fighters not armed with anti-ship weapons will not just spontaneously spawn from other air wings as they do now, instead operating as separate units which can be used to cover airspace. They can operate in one of several niches: Heavy Fighter: Takes a while to arrive but can loiter in an area for a longer period of time, armament is good against slower bulkier craft but might be outmaneuvered by rocket planes, and will generally lose to other fighters in dogfights. Air superiority fighters: Intermediate between interceptors and heavy fighters with respect to dogfighting and loitering. Deals less damage to bombers but takes less damage from other fighters. Interceptors: Meant to fly quickly to an area, loitering only for a brief time, then leave. They can be used to clear away heavy fighters and air superiority fighters, or even bombers if they are well timed. Level Bombers: Lots of options here laying and destroying mines, dropping smokescreens, level bombing – high altitude level bombers are very inaccurate but immune to most short-range AA, but also fewer in number, slower, and more vulnerable to fighters. sub hunting (Replace airdrop depth charges) Submarines: > Subs as consumables is a bit harder than aircraft, but I still think it’s possible. I imagine basic commands like direction and depth settings can be done from the minimap as a surface ship, with the ability to switch to the sub to launch torpedoes. > In terms of a role for submarines, the one thing that WoWs doesn’t really have is a class that can punish camping. So having a consumable that is spawned in from the flanks of a fight, surfaces, launches torpedoes and dives to reload can fill that niche.
  5. A question I have been asked many times while streaming is "When should you go after the enemy CV and try to snipe him early in the game" I talk about that as well as demonstrating a quick CV snipe in Ranked in this video! Hope it helps, and happy hunting! Link for those who can't watch embedded
  6. American Tier VIII Carrier: Enterprise ‘42 Oh, Boy. Time to Stir the pot. However, with the release of Hornet, I thought it was time to pay homage to her much more famous sister: Enterprise. We all know about Enterprise, already in-game, overpowered, etc. However, this will be a 1942 fit, circa Midway-Guadalcanal. (So no SB2Cs with 29400 drop alpha) She will have may similarities to sister ship Hornet,The purpose of bringing a 1942 fit Enterprise is similar to Belfast ’43. Enterprise ‘42’s purpose is to give new players, or players who do not own the original Enterprise, to obtain, and command this historic ship, in perhaps her most famous outfit. Of course, feedback is always appreciated in the comments. Now, lets get into the nitty gritty, Enterprise ‘42 HP- 50,000 Torpedo Reduction- 28% Speed- 32.5 Knots Turning Radius- 1000m Concealment- 14.2km Note: Exactly the same hull as Hornet. AP Dive Bombers: SBD-5 Dauntless HP- 1890 per Aircraft Speed- 122 knots Speed, Boosted- 157 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 16 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Bombs in Payload- 1x Mk.1 1600lb Bomb Bomb Alpha Damage- 3750 Per Bomb, 15000 Per Full Drop Note: Larger bomb than on Hornet, while only doing slightly more damage, it has the more typical dive angle of other American carriers, and it has better penetration; getting through to citadels of tougher ships, like heavy cruisers, battleships, and carriers; while over-penning lighter ships. Torpedo Bombers: TBD Devastator HP- 1750 per Aircraft Speed- 112 knots Speed, Boosted- 147 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 12 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Payload- 1x Mk.7 Torpedo Torpedo Alpha- 4667 Torpedo Speed- 35 knots Torpedo Range- 3.0km Torpedo Arming Distance- 344m HE Dive Bombers: SBD-5 HP- 1890 per Aircraft Speed- 122 knots Speed, Boosted- 157 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 16 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Bombs in Payload- 2x Mk.17 350lb Depth Bomb Bomb Alpha Damage- 3100 Note: Has the shallower dive angle of Hornet’s AP dive bombers, with the bombs falling quickly, and the squadron having a very short delay to set up a run, allowing strikes on small, fast targets like destroyers and submarines. Fighter Patrol: F4F-4 Fighter Patrol Size- 8 Fighter Patrol Radius- 3.5 Duration- 90s Charges Per Squadron- 3 Notes: Enterprise is famous for her fighters, escorting Hornet on the Doolittle Raid, through to the end of the war with her pulling a continuous combat air patrol for 174 hours over Iwo Jima. While in this 1942 configuration she only has F4Fs, they are more numerous and have a quick reaction time, able to quickly intercept enemies in the patrol radius, at the cost of spotting, much like Bearn, however the consumable is only available on dive bombers, with torpedo bombers not getting a fighter patrol, emulating the destruction of the TBDs at Midway. Editors Note: I hope WG goes with this, instead of throwing Enterprise (Original) in an auction, which will inevitably result in her being way overbid and going for $100+ along with being limited run.
  7. Intent To make carrier gameplay and it's counterplay more fair, interesting, and deliberate. Feedback apprciated. TLDR Carrier spotting is nerfed to no longer "light up" targets Nerfs on CV's alpha damage Add "Re-Arm" Times to CV Squadrons Add duplicate squadrons for CVs to manage (depending on carrier for balance) Limited Hangar and Deck Space Buff to DFAA and Catapult Fighters Re-introduction of proper fighter squadrons. "Flak Zones" so players can dictate flak fields and actively deny aircraft attacks. Due to Aforementioned changes all carriers are rebalanced and attain new playstyles revolving the new mechanics of carriers and counterplay. 1.) Spotting For long CVs have posed issues in terms of spotting mechanics. Currently when an ally goes within the spotting range of an enemy ship that ship is “lit up” for both them and the team. For surface-to-surface spotting, this makes sense, as a player risks their own detection to detect the enemy. This poses a problem with aircraft. A carrier can spot for their team at no risk to themselves, as either their squadrons or fighters can spot enemy ships. The goal of this section is to make being spotted by a carrier less of a death sentence. 1a.) Spotting-Visibility Carriers having the potential to stack their own damage with spotting damage is very powerful. My proposal is to reduce spotting of enemy ships to that similar to spotting in squalls; the enemy ships will not be “lit up” for allies but the map location will update when a strike squadron flies within range of a ship’s detectability. 2.) Damage Balance Carrier-induced damage varies wildly, but in general, carrier attacks can come at any angle the carrier wishes, deal large amounts of damage, and damage incurred often can not be healed by much. Carrier also have a nasty habit of dealing a large amount of fires with HE ordinance, floods with torpedoes, and citadels with AP ordinance. Carriers also have a second nasty habit of being able to focus down an enemy opponent with these high damage attacks at a high frequency. Carrier have the ability to set up cross-fires at-will. As this is a inhernt trait of CVs and a core mechanic, so for this section, the goal is to instead focus on damage itself and the frequency of attack a carrier can carry out to focus a target. 2a.) Damage Balance-Damage This first part will be a relatively simple fix. First almost all damage being done by CVs is healable. Second is a across the board nerf of all ordinances dropped by CVs, so singular bomb, rocket, or torpedo hits cannot cripple ships. My idea is to treat carrier bomb and rocket damage to be like that of destroyer shells of the same nation and respective tier, the difference being that carrier ordinance has more penetration and can (with the notable exception of skip bombers), attack top-down, having to go through less armor in the first place. Torpedoes are more complex. Due to being carried by aircraft, and thus needing to be comparatively light, airborne torpedoes should be low damage compared to shipboard torpedoes, but still threatening. 2b.) Damage Balance-Frequency This will be more complicated, now while carriers do have to fly to the target, they can launch squadrons pretty much as soon as the last one is shot down or recalled. My solution will to this will come into play in multiple parts, but first of which is recharges. Like how Ise, Tone, and Kearsarge need to reload squadrons like a consumable, the same should apply to carriers. After all it takes time to refuel, rearm and sometimes repair aircraft, plus bringing new aircraft to the deck to replace losses. Additionally, we can give carriers more, less, or no duplicate squadrons (kind of like the old days) so if a say torpedo squadron one is on recharge, you can launch torpedo squadron two, but you won’t have a torpedo squadron in reserve. This gives a second avenue of balance as well, as some ships may have long re-arm times, but have reserved squadrons ready to react to threats. 3.) Counterplay A problem long plaguing CV games. AA feels almost useless at times, and flak can be dodged. Fighter planes, both catapult a carrier fighters seem to either be for show or as a “revenge” weapon to kill planes when it no longer matters. The goal of this section is to make counterplay more fun and effective. 3a.) Counterplay-AA AA is the main defense for every ship against aircraft. While to keep carriers fun there should be a upper limit to AA, it should be more effective than it is now, we should also implement ways to make it more engaging for players. Next, I would like to address the DFAA consumable. In the past this made squadrons’ reticles expand and have squadrons lose accuracy, this should be brought back, as it makes counterplay more effective. Finally, flak should be more player interactive. In stead of the current “Sector Reinforcement” we should have “Flak Zones”. Currently for all ships there is only two sections: Port and Starboard. For Destroyers they should have 4 zones, Cruisers have 6, Capital ships (BBs and CVs) have 8. Destroyers can only select one zone to shoot flak into, while cruisers and capital ships can pick 2 or 3, depending on ship type and nation. This flak should be much more effective, shooting in less of a dodge-able pattern and more of an airborne mine-field. effectively shutting down an avenue of attack. This will help mitigate the ability for CVs to set up cross-fires at-will . 3b.) Counterplay-Fighters Fighters are your interdiction defense, shooting down aircraft before they get a chance to make an attack run. For catapult fighters they should be intercepting aircraft withing a certain range of the launching ship. Interception range would depend on nation and ship; but If an enemy squadron is detected in interception range, it should immediately seek and attempt to destroy the enemy squadron, before it attacks. For carrier launched fighters it could be complicated, I propose an ability like that of pre-rework. Give the player a separate fighter squadron; for both support and strike carriers, the fighters get a box where the carrier player can “strafe” when they attack, attacking and hopefully destroying any aircraft in this box, opposing carriers will get a warning when taking damage from a strafing attack so they can dodge, and fighters, depending on the carrier and nation, get multiple possible passes like how strike squadrons work. I would hope this would make fighter and CV vs CV gameplay more dynamic. Patrol fighters should be traded for “Fighter Escorts” that act like catapult fighters, following the squadron and intercepting nearby fighters, and protecting the strike, but like fighter patrols it needs a “call-in” time for them to be most effective, they can also be used to draw some AA fire. 3c.) Counterplay-Consequences. Carriers do not risk their own health pool in fights, the next best thing is to make them have consequences for losing planes, effectively making planes their health. As we have massively increased potential of counterplay, we will be somewhat generous. Currently there is a “aircraft on deck” so when planes are lost in a squadron after a strike they get immediately replaced by aircraft on deck, and planes slowly regenerate, presumably by bringing aircraft from the hangar up. Let’s take this idea a step further, lets give carriers a limited hanger as well. While carriers may have duplicate squadrons, as established previously, they have to share deck space. My general rule is one extra ‘attacking flight’ per plane type on deck and 1-2 full squadrons in the hangar, on top of the full complement of each whole squadron at the start of a match. Give and take depending on the nation and tier. The rate of aircraft being brought from hangar to deck could vary for balance, but 2 aircraft being brought up every 40 seconds seems fair and is similar to current recharge rates, with some carriers maybe having “larger elevators” to bring up more aircraft at a time but taking longer to bring up, or “faster elevators” with faster recharge rates but with less planes on them. Should all aircraft run out of aircraft they can regenerate planes slowly if they are within a friendly cap circle, being forced to move up and risk themselves to stay in the fight. 3d.) Counterplay-ASW Every ship match up should have counterplay this includes submarines vs carriers. Carriers should carry ASW Squadrons. That’s all I’ve got to say on this really. 4.) Alternative Mechanics Okay so we did quite a bit of swinging of the nerf bat and made some big changes to counterplay, now time to make CVs still entertaining. 4a.) Alternative Mechanics – Strategy This was touched on in 2b and 3c, but make CVs more of a strategic playstyle. Make a CV player plan out when to launch what squadron where ahead of time due to re-arm times and multiple squadrons with duplicates squadrons and a limited aircraft pool. Also, you have to manually use fighters to cover allies, you may not be in a position to strike if allies are in trouble. 4b.) Alternative Mechanics-New Playstyles The slew of new mechanics would drastically change how carriers are played. All these new mechanics also give the opportunity to make each carrier more unique to play, but first let’s just recap a little on the new, proposed ways for carriers to be balanced with all these changes: 1. Aircraft Re-Arm Times 2. Multiple Squadrons to Manage 3. More Limited Deck and Hangar Space 4. Elevator Times (Bringing Aircraft from Hangar to Deck) Let’s do some examples on how these may make carrier be more balanced, fun, and unique. British carriers in game can seem pretty anemic comparted to contemporaries. But we can make British carriers have quick re-arm times to contemporaries, but it takes longer to bring aircraft from the hanger to the deck, and with very limited hangar and deck space. Making British carriers ironically a kind of “death-by-a-thousand-cuts ” carrier with high frequency attacks, but lower damage and losses mattering much more, despite the bulkier health of planes. These CVs would play most similarly to what we have now due to how frequently they can attack. Japanese carriers could have long re-arm times for their squadrons, but with lots of aircraft in their squadrons, on the deck, and in the hangar. This would make them more of a “endurance” carrier, being able to stay in the fight longer, even with high attrition, and doing okay individual damage and the lots of aircraft per squadron allowing multiple follow up attack and good damage over time, but requiring planning due to the slower reaction times. German carriers could be a “opportunist” carrier, doing good damage with their fast squadrons, but taking time to re-arm and losses mattering with low aircraft complements, making players use the speed of the squadrons to attack high-value low-health targets to work efficiently. American carriers can be a “jack-of-all-trades” being all-round average in squadron size, damage and speed. Having decent deck and hangar space, and a good reload time. Soviet carriers are still the “alpha strike” carriers. Large squadrons with decent damage and speed, but with low health and long re-arm times to balance them. Soviet carriers could have little reserve deck space but decent hangar space, as their planes have low health. However needlessly throwing away aircraft in wave tactics will come back to haunt the player mid-to-late-game.
  8. I served aboard the beast of the east when she was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan for 2 years. quite a good time in my life just 18 and the world at my feet. visited some 20 different countries during that span How many others are seeing the old duty station in this game.
  9. My last 15 matches have looked like this since I switched to playing my carriers. Is there something about carrier matches that makes this happen? This does not happen when I play destroyers. So why do I constantly land on the weaker team now as a carrier player? Yes, I am new, but I am a good spotter, yet my teammates just don't do much with the info, do not contest caps, and get deleted eventually.
  10. kriegsmarine_gaming

    Russian Carriers

    USSR CV's are stupid broken So, if you've been in a game with a Super tester on the enemy team, you probably encountered Nahkimov or one of the USSR CV's. After having a few games with/against them, as a normal player, they're broken as [edited]. You might look at my stats and think I don't know jack, but that's ignoring the problem. These damn Cv's can remove a stupid amount of Hit Points on a lot of ships. Their rockets can remove cruisers, bombs can severely hurt destroyers, cruisers and battleships, and the torps are something else entirely. I'd rather leave this open to discussion but at least get WG to see that their idea for these russian carriers should be pushed back, retested, and nerfed to no tomorrow.
  11. You already know. But in the event there was any remaining questions of what the low tier Pre-WWI ship experience in WoWS delivers… Super - Talks about protected cruisers in a thread on the forums yesterday. Enthusiastically brings out Varyag (1901) from the mothball fleet, and dives into low tier play! Finds two T4 CVs (1922/1924) awaiting after the 6 minute wait for enough people. Proceeds into battle. Proceeds to sink 3, and chase the hapless Red CVs while holding 2 caps Red CVs remain undeterred: Varyag does not have Tanaka and his Nambu pistol yet! ZERO AA! Vasily left his revolver in port due to a vodka hangover. Red CV Hermes, despite weathering 46 hits (20k in damage) lands 5 torps / 5 bombs / 4 rockets and sinks nimble Varyag (324k potential from all the dodges). Langley laughs in the distance, as he did not even need to partake. Super - questions why he thought playing low tier “welcome to World of CVs” was a good idea…Hits “Battle On” because what are the odds of another match like this one? 3 minutes wait reveals: another 4 CV match. Match dwindles down to 2 CVs on each side in a duel. Bravo WeeGee!!!
  12. 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.
  13. ***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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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?
  19. 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
  20. ...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?
  21. Every time I find myself in a game without any sky cancer, I thank my lucky stars!
  22. 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
  23. 07Beast109

    French Cvs

    Has anyone heard any talk about French Carriers, coming in game anytime. Since the French did actually build some CVs
  24. 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?
  25. 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
×