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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    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. Every time I find myself in a game without any sky cancer, I thank my lucky stars!
  2. 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
  3. 07Beast109

    French Cvs

    Has anyone heard any talk about French Carriers, coming in game anytime. Since the French did actually build some CVs
  4. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. The 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier, with the Colossus and Majestic class served in 8 different Navies world wide. The Royal Navy, France , the Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Australia and India. I would love to see a version of each. While I realize there no longer any in existence I know models do exist. I think they would make a wonderful addition to the carrier cohort.
  15. Hi, I just promoted my captain to a 19 point captain on Ryujo, and I have 4 points that I can put somewhere. I would like to know what other people have chosen beyond the basic ones that all CV players choose. I am thinking of using Concealment Expert as my last skill. This would put my detection radius under 9 km. Ryujo cannot survive long if detected, so I always stay hidden when possible. I don't see the usefulness of Demolition Expert since Ryujo uses AP bombs and I would only get 1% for rockets. That's not a lot for three captain points, it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong though. I could also try Adrenaline Rush with Improved Booster (one point skill) and then... Last Gasp? I don't even know what that skill does. It is not very clear. Anyone know? I only consider AR because many times my plane is shot down right when I hit the drop button, so if it were a little faster, I would be able to launch more bombs and torpedoes before my last plane is destroyed, but I don't know this for sure. It just happens a lot. Currently I have: Air Supremacy, Improved Engines, Torpedo Acceleration, Survival Expert, Plane Armor, and Sight Stabilization. I have four points left. What have other people used their last 4 points for on Ryujo? Thanks for any advice.
  16. Should Hiryuu/Souryuu be implemented as premiums or a line split for the IJN tech tree? I find it disappointing that they've been removed due to their historical significance and aesthetic appeal. Secondly, where is Hornet and Akagi? I'm frustrated by the lack of options when it comes to US and IJN CV premiums. Kaga is an interesting ship, but she is the only choice since WG had to throw Big E in the closet. A Shoukaku clone in the form of a Zuikaku with perhaps a crane themed camo would also be extremely cool for historical buffs. By the way, imagine Yamashiro being put into the game as a BBV. I could see it functioning as regular BB from the player's perspective, but with a consumable plane squadron that functions using the manual target system for secondaries. I'd really like to hear thoughts on these ideas as well as opinions of CVs in general. Do you think CVs are truly overpowered? In my personal opinion they lack the dpm to be truly OP, but I can understand that it is frustrating that there is little counter play against them.
  17. Hello again everyone! It’s been… Quite a while since I posted one of these. Yeah, sorry about that. I had intended to do everything all in a row but just got completely burnt out after getting the British done. Still, the Devs have spurred me into action by releasing preliminary stats for a brand new line of German carriers. Cool! And also unexpected, I would have thought that they’d have put the alternate lines back in first. Anyway, because of that I’m going to be changing up the format from my last three threads (linked at the end) a bit. Instead of looking exhaustively at planes, ordnance, and carriers all together; I’m going to be describing how their version of the ships matches with what I came up with but never got quite polished enough to post, and then roughly going over plane stats and gimmicks. If you guys want a more in-depth look it can be added later. So, with that being said, German aircraft carriers! Carriers We’ll start our journey through the realm of what were they/is Landsraad thinking?! By, as usual, establishing a baseline with our old controversial friend, the best tier 8 cruiser in the game, Graf Zeppelin. Tier 8 Premium: Graf Zeppelin Defensive Armament: 8x2 150mm L/55 naval guns 6x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 11x2 37mm Flak guns 7x4 20mm Flak guns Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka Fieseler Fi 167 In-Game Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Me 155 (RA, 8/2, 14) Focke-Wulf Ta 152C (TB, 9/3, 16) Focke-Wulf Ta 152C (DB, 8/2, 14) Aviation Facilities: Three deck elevators Two catapults 42 aircraft complement Speed: 35 knots Armor: 30-100mm belt, unarmored hangar Displacement: 33550 tons There we go, pretty straightforward at first glance. Of course anyone who’s played Graf Zeppelin knows that this ship is anything BUT straightforward, and that all boils down to the characteristics of her aircraft. Her planes are, to put it simply, squishy. Her rocket planes are tied for slowest in tier as well, but have hard hitting 8” rockets so they can be good for catching tricky destroyers. On the other hand, her bombers were only recently dethroned from the crown of “fastest planes in the game” by Indomitable, and on top of that have their own individual quirks. Her torpedoes are slow, though not quite British slow; and her dive bombers are specialized in slinging AP bombs through belt armor by going in from the side. We’ll come back to this later, as WG has decided to capitalize on much of this for their new line, but it doesn’t matter too much when designing the ships themselves. We’ll save the discussion of gimmicks for the air wing section. But for now, onto the ships! Tier 4: “Rhein” Defensive Armament: 2x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns ? Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka Proposed Aircraft Complement: Arado Ar.68 (RA, 6/3, 9) Arado Ar.95b (TB, 8/2, 9) Heinkel He.50 (DB, 8/2, 9) Speed: 26 knots Armor: 16mm plating, unarmored hangar Hit Points: 32300 I’m having to guess a little bit on the origins of Rhein, but I feel reasonably confident in saying that this is Wargaming’s attempt to bring the planned Jade-class carrier conversion into the game at tier 4. And she does look like a respectable little ship. Let’s compare to what I was able to dig up: Tier 4: Jade (ocean liner Gneisenau conversion) http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_cv8.gif Defensive Armament: 6x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 5x2 37mm Flak guns 16x2 20mm Flak guns Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka Proposed Aircraft Complement: Heinkel He 51 (RA, 6/3, 9) Fieseler Fi 167 (TB, 8/2, 9) Henschel Hs 123 (DB, 6/2, 9) Aviation Facilities: Two deck elevators Two catapults 24 aircraft complement Speed: 19 knots Armor: 10-15mm belt, 20mm deck, unarmored hangar Displacement: 20020 tons Keep in mind that WeeGee has not released any details on Rhein’s AA thus far. For a ship that lives and dies by aircraft this is rather annoying but hey, we’ll work with what we’ve got. I’m fairly certain that the ship is in fact one of the proposed liner conversions, the funnel, superstructure, and overall shape point to that IMO. There honestly aren’t too many large differences, mainly the number of 105mm turrets and the fully enclosed hurricane bow. The latter is a purely aesthetic choice as far as the game goes, and the former makes sense for baby’s first carrier. Their speed is also different, Wargaming opting for a buff of about 7 knots from the official speed. I’m curious about the choice of name though. I’ll acknowledge that “Jade” isn’t terribly German-sounding, but in that case her sister Elbe would fit quite well. Still, that’s a minor nitpick and Rhein would fit as either a rename of Jade or a third ship of the class. Moving on… Edit: For those who want to know a bit more, here's @dseehafer's thread on the subject Tier 6: Weser Defensive Armament: 5x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns ? Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Messerschmitt Bf 109E (RA, 8/2, 12) Dornier Do.22 (TB, 8/2, 12) Henschel Hs.123 (DB, 8/2, 12) Speed: 32 knots Armor: 19mm plating, unarmored hangar Hit Points: 41000 Before moving on to comparing the two, I would just like to point out that having a biplane as the top aircraft on a line built around having FAST planes seems rather odd to me. Tier 6: Weser (Hipper conversion) Defensive Armament: 5x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 5x2 37mm Flak guns 24x2 20mm Flak guns Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka Proposed Aircraft Complement (Stock): Heinkel He 112 (RA, 6/2, 9) Heinkel He 118 (TB, 6/2, 9) Hamburger Flugzeugbau Ha 137 (DB, 8/2, 12) Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 (RA, 6/2, 9) Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka (TB, 6/2, 9) Junkers Ju 87D-4 Stuka (DB, 8/2, 12) Aviation Facilities: Three deck elevators Two catapults 20 aircraft complement Speed: 32 knots Armor: 70-80mm belt, 20-50mm deck, unarmored hangar Displacement: ~18900 tons This one I hit dead-on, didn’t even get the name wrong. And it certainly makes sense! As the former tier 6 US Independence class was based on a tier 8 Cleveland, why not base another nation’s tier 6 on their own tier 8 carrier? Weser was a conversion of the Admiral Hipper class cruiser Seydlitz that was begun but never completed. Nothing about the design seems to have changed from what has been revealed, though they did opt for 19mm plating over the ship as opposed to Hipper’s 27mm or even Mainz’s 25mm. Given that the ship is of a lower tier and less likely to be shot at directly… That’s fair. Edit: @dseehafer's thread on Weser. Tier 8: “August von Parseval” Defensive Armament: 6x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns ? Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T Junkers Ju 87D-4 “Stuka” Fieseler Fi 167 Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Messerschmitt Bf.109G (RA, 9/3, 14) Messerschmitt Bf.110C7 (TB, 9/3, 14) Messerschmitt Bf.110C7 (DB, 9/3, 14) Speed: 31.8 knots Armor: 19mm plating, unarmored hangar Hit Points: 51400 Tier 8: “Peter Strasser” (Graf Zeppelin hull B) Defensive Armament: 8x2 150mm L/55 naval guns 6x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 11x2 37mm Flak guns 7x4 20mm Flak guns Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Messerschmitt Bf 109T Junkers Ju 87D-4 “Stuka” Fieseler Fi 167 Proposed Aircraft Complement (Stock): Messerschmitt Bf 109T-3 (RA, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 87G-2 “Stuka” (TB, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 87G-2 “Stuka” (DB, 12/3, 18) Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Messerschmitt Me 209T (RA, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 187 (TB, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 187 (DB, 12/3, 18) Aviation Facilities: Three deck elevators Two catapults 42 aircraft complement Speed: 35 knots Armor: 30-100mm belt, unarmored hangar Displacement: 33550 tons I have… Feelings, about how this tier has been worked out by WarGaming. On the one hand, the ship turned out pretty much exactly as I expected. Indeed they even went with an “upgraded” Graf Zeppelin hull C that did away with the 150mm secondaries to help Graf Zeppelin remain unique. The names chosen are different, but August von Parseval sounds at least as good as Peter Strasser. But then we come to the planes. I’ll be perfectly blunt, I’m not a fan of the Bf.110 being made into a carrier-borne plane. A large twin-engine aircraft should, in my opinion, only be used for a carrier if it’s doing something that a single-engine plane couldn’t. For example, a carrier that had squadrons of fewer aircraft carrying more ordnance each would be fine for twin-engine planes (see: USS Hornet, Doolittle Raid version with B-25s). But going really fast? This is GERMANY, they have plenty of fast single-engine planes that fit the bill. Why use the Bf.110 when a Focke Wulfe 190 could do the job of a high speed bomber? Tier 10: “Manfred von Richtofen” Defensive Armament: 12x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns ? Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Messerschmitt Me.155G (RA, 9/3, 14) Focke Wulfe Ta.152C (TB, 9/3, 14) Focke Wulfe Ta.152C (DB, 9/3, 14) Speed: 32 knots Armor: 19mm plating, unarmored hangar Hit Points: 65300 Tier 10: “Oswald Boelcke” (Ersatz Graf Zeppelin) Defensive Armament: 10x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 18x2 37mm Flak guns 4x4 20mm Flak guns 12x2 20mm Flak guns Proposed Aircraft Complement (Stock): Messerschmitt Me 209T (RA, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 187 (TB, 9/3, 14) Junkers Ju 187 (DB, 12/3, 18) Proposed Aircraft Complement (Elite): Dornier Do 335 Pfiel (RA, 9/3, 14) Dornier Do 335 Pfiel (TB, 9/3, 14) Dornier Do 335 Pfiel (DB, 12/3, 18) Aviation Facilities: Three deck elevators Two catapults 60 aircraft complement Speed: 32.5 knots Armor: 50-125mm belt, unarmored hangar Displacement: ~40000 tons So once again I came out pretty close with my rough estimates to what Wargaming decided on for the ship itself. All dual-purpose secondaries, roughly 32 knot speed, basically an “ersatz Graf Zeppelin” to use the tradition of German replacement naming. I will admit that Wargaming DID solve a problem that I had with this ship, that being her air group having a bad case of Audacious syndrome and using the Dornier Do.335 for every role, but they did so by copy-pasting Graf Zeppelin’s aircraft and messing with their stats. That just doesn’t sit right with me, especially considering that Graf Zeppelin is no Saipan with regards to plane HP and lethality. I’m tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I’m still worried about this whole concept all the same. Gimmick Before we get into planes and ordnance it occurs to me that we need to lay out something that I would normally just build up to in these posts, because Wargaming and I have rather different ideas on the matter. That of course is the almighty gimmick. What does this line do well? What makes it special? What makes it stand out from Japan, the US, and Britain? Wargaming’s solution to this seems to be taking Graf Zeppelin and turning it up to eleven. All squadrons are now very fast but have low health. Dive bombers are equipped with AP bombs with the same odd dive pattern as Graf Zeppelin, but an elliptical drop pattern. Torpedo bombers have torpedoes that are super slow, but hard-hitting. Rocket planes have small numbers of new armor-piercing rockets. And of course finally, the ships themselves have good secondaries as befitting their German heritage. That’s the theory anyway. Wargaming isn’t the only one with an almighty spreadsheet however, so let’s see how they stack up compared to what’s out already. To save time we’ll just be looking at the stats of the elite planes for tier 6, 8, and 10. Tier 4: Rhein Rhein puts us off to an interesting start when analyzed alongside Langley, Hosho, and Hermes. Her planes all check the “fragile” box easily when looked at in an individual light, and since squadron sizes are pretty uniform at tier 4 this holds true for entire flights as well. In terms of speed and power, her torpedo planes check both boxes necessary to fulfil the German gimmick as laid out: With a whopping 11600 potential damage per attack run (before TDS is taken into account) and 13 knots of cruising speed on their rivals these planes definitely fit the bill. On the other hand, her rocket planes are outdone in speed by Langley’s F3F Gulfhawks, though in this case they’re at least still above average. The real curiosity comes from Rhein’s dive bombers, which have the worst cruising speed in their tier at a mere 96 knots, while everyone else does either 98 or 99. Tier 6: Weser Weser seems to try and straighten out the trend set by Rhein back into what the Devs have said that they wanted. Once again all squadrons are composed of planes with, individually, the worst HP in their tier. Notably though their total squadron HP is often saved from the bottom of the barrel by sheer numbers as plane counts start to diversify. They’re also consistently high speed, coming in first or second place each time compared to all of the tier 6 carriers. The dive bombers even manage to sit at the top of the pack rather than lagging behind this time! The torpedo bombers also remain damage kings, with only Ark Royal and its three Fairey Swordfish dropping tinfish at a time beating them out in raw damage. From what the stats are saying right now, Weser looks like the most comfortable ship to play of the line. Tier 8: August von Parseval The Parseval seems to be where the cracks start to show and stats begin diverging from reality so far as gimmick is concerned. Once again their HP is all worst in tier individually, though per squadron Graf Zeppelin saves her sister from being absolute worst in terms of getting wrecked by flak (Saipan helps too). Her rocket planes are, frankly, not that fast. Don’t get me wrong, they are indeed better than average, but in a field where Saipan, Indomitable, and Lexington are all competing the deck was loaded against these planes from minute one. Only Enterprise and her F6F Hellcats manage to be “above average” while still staying slower than Parseval’s Bf.109s, and then only by two knots. Thankfully her torpedo planes fare much better, being beaten out only by Graf Zeppelin and otherwise being the only TBs to come close to the 130 knot mark. Their damage is still good too, though Saipan and Kaga dropping four fish at a time does keep her from the top spot. Then there’s the dive bombers, and they’re pretty much in the same boat as the torpedo planes while now having to contend with Indomitable and her stupid-fast Sea Hornets. Tier 10: Manfred von Richtofen Get ready to press F to pay respects, because as she is now the Richtofen looks to be dead on arrival. We’ll skip the HP for now, because it is low, but how is another matter. Speed-wise they’re all fine. The bombers both beat their nearest competitors by about 30 knots and the rocket planes take a respectable second to Midway’s F8F Bearcats by a mere 4 knots. In terms of torpedo damage they are once again in the top two only outdone by Midway. Considering that Midway drops twice as many torpedoes in a run, I’ll call that a win. But now we get to HP, and… I don’t know what they’re thinking. These numbers are bad, plain and simple. Every squadron is made up of planes with below-average HP for tier 8, let alone tier 10. Also, because they now have the same standard 9/3, 14 setup that every other carrier at tier 10 either meets or exceeds for every squadron, their total squadron HP is just as bad if not worse. The torpedo planes are the best off, they at least can claim to be within a couple hundred HP of average. The rocket planes and dive bombers on the other hand? The rocket planes just barely beat out Graf Zeppelin’s, and the dive bombers have LESS HP than Graf Zeppelin’s by 260! These planes look like they’ll simply evaporate if you even look at them funny in tier 10, no two ways about it. Well that’s WarGaming’s take on the line’s gimmick, so what was mine? Honestly I’m a firm believer in “sometimes the best gimmick is no gimmick”, so take away the AP dive bombs and rockets. Take away the fast bombers too. I know that a lot of people (myself included) were looking forward to getting the Stuka with this line, and that’s not a fast plane at all. So while my idea was for Germany to have faster but more fragile rocket planes, their bombers would have been slower and tankier (at least up until tier 10). Sort of an inverse Graf Zeppelin. And one more thing would have set them apart too. See, nothing has been done with consumables for carriers yet despite them being the main way other lines get their gimmicks. Why not start by letting one squadron (we’ll say rocket planes) from tier 6 up swap out their fighter consumable for a deployable sonobuoy. Basically it would be like the fighter cover in that it’s stationary, of limited duration, and calls in a plane that can be shot down. However instead of shooting down planes over an area this would call in search planes to put down what is essentially an immobile hydro beacon. The stats would probably be something like this: Tier 6: Aircraft: 3x Messerschmitt Bf 110E-3 HP: 2500 per plane (7500 total) Duration: 90 seconds Cooldown: 120 seconds Torp Detection: 3km Ship Detection: 3.5km Tier 8: Aircraft: 3x Me 410B Hornisse HP: 3000 per plane (9000 total) Duration: 90 seconds Cooldown: 120 seconds Torp Detection: 3.5km Ship Detection: 4km Tier 10: Aircraft: 2x Fw 200 Condor HP: 6000 per plane (12000 total) Duration: 90 seconds Cooldown: 120 seconds Torp Detection: 4km Ship Detection: 4.5km I like this idea, I feel like it really emphasizes the carrier’s role in supporting the fleet not only with damage but with recon and early warning data. Dropped sonobuoys would be especially helpful for guarding from long range torpedo strikes if timed right, as well as monitoring choke-points, and-as long as the planes aren’t shot down-flushing ships out of smoke. Now there is ONE more ship than WarGaming has revealed that I had envisioned putting in, since every line needs a premium and not everyone wants to put down money for a tier 8. So without further ado: Tier 6 Premium: “Max Immelmann” (DeGrasse conversion) Defensive Armament: 6x2 105mm L/65 dual-purpose guns 6x2 37mm Flak guns 12x2 20mm Flak guns Intended Historical Aircraft Complement: Bf 109T Ju 87D-4 “Stuka” Proposed Aircraft Complement: Bf 109T-1 (RA, 6/2, 9) Ju 87D-4 “Stuka” (GB, 6/2, 9) Ju 87D-4 “Stuka” (DB, 6/2, 9) Aviation Facilities: Two deck elevators Two catapults 23 aircraft complement Speed: 32 knots Armor: 100mm belt, 38mm deck, unarmored hangar Displacement: 11600 tons So Germany captured a lot of ships when they invaded coastal countries, as well as the facilities and industry to continue work on them in many cases. The French cruiser DeGrasse was one of those and, like so many ships in the hands of the Kriegsmarine, slated to be turned into a carrier before the Luftwaffe threw a hissy fit because they didn’t play well with others. You’ll notice that instead of “TB” for Torpedo Bomber, the Immelmann as I propose her has a squadron marked “GB”. That is not a typo. Premiums need gimmicks too after all, and while I didn’t feel comfortable giving this on to the whole line, a single ship felt fine. In this case, Immelmann’s specialty would be glide bombing, which would be sort of a hybrid of torpedo and dive-bombing when the aircraft dropped from a distance to try to hit the side of a ship, but instead of torpedoes dropped stabilised (not guided in this case) bombs that could then pierce though belt armor if aimed and RNG’d properly. The weapon in question would be this: Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X Type: Glide Bomb Warhead: 320 kg AP Mass: 1362 kg Damage: ? The Fritz X, as it was known, was a rather effective stand-off weapon when used properly. More than capable of causing massive damage to cruisers with a solid hit. In this case, we’d basically have an armor-piercing warhead with aerial-torpedo levels of damage. Penetration would probably be good enough to consistently get upper belt or casemate damage on same-tier battleships, but not enough to go through full battleship belt armor. And that pretty much wraps up how I envisioned the German carrier line and how it compares to WarGaming’s version currently undergoing testing. As always any questions, comments, or criticisms are welcome; so please let me know what you think and if you want more of this stuff! Part 1: US Part 2: Japan Part 3: Britain
  18. 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.
  19. Please note before reading: I understand that this idea may be a but controversial, and I understand that this mechanic will most likely not be implemented. It is just a proposal, so please do not go typing how “this will never be implemented, and cvs are cancer and should be removed.” If you agree to the notice then feel free to move on, if not then I can’t help you. Context: In world war 2, bombs of all kinds were made and used during the many battles both at sea and on land. In WOWS, bombs can ONLY cause damage if they directly hit the target ship. In real life however, in the case of such ships as Yamato and Musashi, bombs could cause damage to a ship even if they didn’t directly hit the vessel. (Even on the wrecks of both ships there is evidence of damage cause by “near misses” where bombs exploded in the water and still caused damage to the ship below the waterline.) What I want to propose is a mechanic where when a carrier’s planes bomb a ship or shoot missiles at a ship, then they have a 1 in 8 chance to cause damage to a ship through near misses. Also, the near miss has a 1 in 20 chance to cause flooding to a ship if the damage is enough. (These numbers are just a temporary value and can be changed if needed, which they most likely will.) As for missiles, they could have a lesser chance to cause damage from near misses. For example, a bomb would have a 1 in 8 chance with a 1 in 20 percent chance for a near miss to cause flooding, while a missile would have a 1 in 10 chance with no chance of the near miss to cause flooding. (Again these values can be changed if they aren’t random enough or could occur too often.) Another thing, each bomb that doesn’t hit the target has its own individual change to cause a near miss, and if needed, the chance of causing damage from a near miss can decrease the further from the target ship a bomb hits. What do you think of my proposal? Do you like it or hate it? Check Yay if you agree, Nay if you don’t, and Meh if you think that there are some changes that could make it better! I’d also love to see a comment explaining why you agree, disagree, or stating what changes you’d like to see! (ALSO please be kind! Remember, Fish are Friends, Not Food!!! 😉)
  20. I was watching this video And it brought up some thoughts as to why WoWS is not reflective in real aircraft rearmament. For one it is a safe place (100%) for carrier armaments reloading in WoWS. Granted HE/AP rounds reloading are not safe either for battleships, cruisers, etc., however with carrier rearmament everything is manually loaded. There are no rails or loaders on carriers for their aircraft bombs, torpedoes, or rockets. It is all handled by manpower. And as such, there are times when accidents do happen because of manpower. Now I realize that WoWS is an arcade game, however I wonder if there should be a percentage chance that a fire breaks out because of foul ups in rocket re-armaments. I think there should be a slight chance that a fire breaks out on a carrier (3% ?) if you are launching rocket aircraft. And in response to the rocket loading fire chance, a skill set should be modified (Expert Loader or Basics of Survivability) to offset the chance of fire (2% reduction). If a fire does break out because of rocket aircraft, then all aircraft can not launch until the fire is out. There is a question if the carrier's aircraft numbers should be reduce by the fire too (destroyed by fire) I think there should be a risk factor if you are using rocket aircraft as a carrier. If WG is looking for uses in countermeasures for carrier tactics, I think this idea seems plausible for rocket aircraft in WoWS. What do you guys think of this discussion? Any improvements? Would this add value to the game?
  21. Charlie2Pen

    CV vs DD balance

    so I've been playing for four years and took an eight month break to come back and find that CV's have made destroyers completely obsolete. I did my homework and have seen that this has been an issue since the rework just after i stopped playing and has been hot fixed over and over and yet I'm still getting 1 shot by rockets within two minutes of the game starting. if i even look at a flag the wrong way i get 2 fires, broken engine and rudder along with the 3/4ths of my health it hit me for. how is this considered balanced? I know people must get tired of hearing dd players complain but I'm not even a dedicated destroyer player i only have 2 T10 dd's working on my 3rd. i just think there needs to be some compromise, obviously you cant have dds be immune or they go carrier hunting and then that's unbalanced but the game isn't in a healthy spot as it is. this is my first time ever posting a topic, never even commented on one i usually believe in sucking it up and just dealing with it but i really want to know if its just me not being good with dd's and it really isn't that bad, or is this still an issue?
  22. I tried out my lowly Langley for the first time today. Wasn't as bad as I thought. Driving the planes is a bit clumsy, but the best that can be expected for this game, I suppose. I tried both randoms, and co-op. Co-op is the place for a Tier 4 CV. It's a pity that I will have to grind a loooong way, before getting a Tier 6 CV, where the points count. Looking forward to Ranger, a long ways off. No need to go higher. It's the spotting that makes people mad at CV's, I think. I hunted out the opposition CV pretty quickly after a few tries. DD's are the natural targets. The flak ships are to be avoided.
  23. shadragon

    Enterprise CV

    I'd like to get an Enterprise CV. I hear good things from the players who have her already. It was in the premium shop, for a while, but no longer. Is she coming back at some point? Or is that it? I hope Wargaming realizes they would make more money if they actually had products available. :) I also heard it pops up in the odd supercontainer. Is there any way to improve the odds of a ship drop? With my luck I`ll go for an Enterprise and get a Mogador...
  24. jfpherndon

    jfpherndon

    A carrier tutorial would be a nice feature
  25. Its probably best if you just glance over the Underlined and bold parts. Its quite long. Plz reply and share your experiences. Hi everybody! I have been looking around at other forums and have thought that It would be a good idea to have one, big, main forum where everybody can voice their opinions (i.e. rage and complain) about the recent carrier rework. I have been getting several different opinions about what the carrier rework and hotfix has done to our warships. I have been looking around to see what kind of different opinions we have been getting about the carrier rework. From what I have currently seen, the most trouble has come from destroyers. The complaint is that aircraft spotting is too good, and that they are permaspotted and shelled by everything in the vicinity. The same can be said about scout cruisers, which lack the AA defense to repel concentrated air attack, and who cannot output enough damage to repel the hail of fire that the rest of the battle fleet will throw at it. This also does not allow it to spot other targets, voiding its purpose. Light and Heavy cruisers can output a substantial amount of AA firepower, but only the most powerful light cruisers and the most AA oriented heavy cruisers to repel a concentrated air attack. Under constant attack from my fully maxed Lexington, only the enemy Atlanta, AA spec Cleveland, a new Orleans with defensive AA fire, and a trio of battleships pooling their AA could prevent themselves from being decimated by my aircraft (even the AA ships still took minor damage from the remains of my squadrons). Light cruisers that shoot from behind islands are immobile, and vulnerable to attack from bombers and torpedo planes. Heavy cruisers, especially those with an AA focus, are the only ships capable of repelling constant attack by same tier carriers without major damage. Most battleships, with the exception of high tier American ones, generally have crap or mediocre AA, and need an escort or a division to pool their AA. However, concealment isn't really that important, and all BBs can take a hit, so other than being unable to dodge torpedoes, they did OK. The main consensus is that CV's are not that fun to play against. On top of that, It is hard to repel air attack, and being permanently spotted is deadly for most light cruisers and destroyers. I have also heard complaints from the aircraft carrier community. The US Cv community, complains that dive bombers require too much RNG and that the torpedoes don't do enough alpha. The IJN community is having trouble with AP bombs and the bomb sights, which are accurate but hard to use. The british CV line is still going through buffs and nerf at an alarming rate. Right now (2 patches from now this could have changed entirely) the british CV community complains that the short arming distance torpedoes are carried by aircraft that lack the health and speed to reach their target, and the bombing runs are rather flat and sort of have a forward rather than a mostly down trajectory. On top of that, all Cv's are having trouble doing reliable damage to ships. For example, American CV's struggle to inflict damage with bombs to well armored battleships, whose deck they fail to penetrate, and maneuvering cruisers, which they lack the accuracy to hit. Many Cv's complain that other ships do damage and earn credits farming damage off of cruisers and destroyers that they spot, while the CV hemorrhages aircraft trying to get damage done and the cruisers and destroyers rage over being spotted and focused down by the rest of the enemy ships. In conclusion, I believe that carrier spotting mechanics are a death sentence for any ships that rely on concealment. I also believe that Carriers fail to do much damage due to the fact that their planes, while fast, have too little health or maneuverability. Also, Carriers don't like being up-tiered. I look forward to your opinions and ideas about how to fix the carrier. Please PLZ! comment below. Photo gallery:
×