Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carriers'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 46 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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:
  7. Get rid of rockets for CVs and allow CVs to use both AP and HE divebombs (would probably be a timer to switch to a different bomb time when aircraft are on deck)
  8. Destroyers versus Carrier Aircraft need help. This proposal in aimed to do exactly that: save the Destroyer from Carriers, but within REASON. Goal of the proposed change: Give all Destroyers a dedicated defensive "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable that remains active for X minutes and respawns destroyed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" during that time frame. This will enable Destroyers to capture a zone at game start and fully protect themselves from enemy Aircraft Carriers for a limited amount of time. Reason for the proposed change: Destroyers are the ships that normally capture zones and they need special protection to at least enable them to capture ONE zone, especially when their fleet does not protect them from enemy Aircraft. If the Destroyers of a fleet fail to capture a zone at the start of the match due to enemy Aircraft, then that usually also decides the outcome of the match. That is very bad for game play. The proposed Consumable should allow every Destroyer to capture at least one zone even when facing an enemy Aircraft Carrier. This is to be a new and a unique "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable, for Destroyers ONLY, that works very different from the "Fighter Squadron" Consumable that currently exists in the game. The Characteristics of the proposed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable change: It is a consumable that is only available to all Destroyers at all Tiers that face a Carrier and the Consumable is only available to a Destroyer when they are in a match with enemy Carriers (if not then it is hidden). It can only be used once per match for X amount of minutes. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of two parts: one on-map, one off-map. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of a single Fighter Patrol Squadron, consisting of X Fighter Aircraft, that flies at low altitude above the Destroyer in a circle pattern (like the existing "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does). The on-map part "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" can be spotted, damaged and destroyed by enemy Aircraft and enemy AA/Flak because they fly at low altitude. The off-map (very high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that will replace the on-map (low altitude) Fighter Patrol Squadron if it is destroyed. This replacing takes place X seconds after the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron is destroyed. The off-map (high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that fly at very high altitude above a Destroyer and thus above the range of enemy Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Flak/Fighters. They are not visually represented on the map and mini map, they cannot spot and they cannot be attacked nor can they attack. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable has a radius that is 25% LARGER that than of the current best Fighter Squadron in the game. When enemy Aircraft enter the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" circle, the on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" will move in to attack them, like the current "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does. If the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable is destroyed it will be replaced by a full Hit Point Fighter Patrol Squadron that travels down from very high altitude to low altitude within X seconds after the last on-map Fighter Patrol aircraft was destroyed. The on-map and off-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable cannot spot. That simulates that there is no direct communication between the Destroyer and the Fighter Patrol Squadrons, like usually was the case in real life in WW2. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable can spot only for itself, but cannot share data on what it spots with the Destroyer and the fleet. It is advisable to combine this "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" with the "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" that is described in another topic.
  9. Goal of the proposed change: Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations. Reason for the proposed change: Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Proposed change: Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels. Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS). The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. Here are two examples of how this works out: For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP. A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56. It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in another topic.
  10. So look... this kind of stuff is out of hand, happens nearly every other match these days... The customer ticket process is a bit of a pain... can you add another category or a faster path to streamline the filing of reports on these folks? Mind you, that's a team mate talking to his own carrier players.
  11. I confess that I am still learning about the post-rework CV system. But I must ask, what separates a good CV captain from a bad one (and yes, I've already heard the "all CVs are bad/broken and you should be ashamed of yourself")? During a battle, what does a good CV captain do/not do that a bad CV captain would/would not do? I understand that there are some obvious things like: going with your team vs. staying at your spawn point attacking isolated ships vs. attacking clusters of enemies aiming properly/missing everything leaving a fighter plane to spot vs. not spotting But other than that I am somewhat stumped about what nowadays separates a good CV captain from a bad one, since a lot of the pre-rework tactics (target prioritization, fighter control, etc.) have been thrown out. Anything helpful is appreciated.
  12. Avenge_December_7

    How To Evade AA Fire?

    Even though I am still practicing in co-op, I find that whenever I take out my Enterprise or Saipan and face some ship with decent AA (a North Carolina), I cannot seem to both keep on target and keep my planes alive. And oftentimes I lose a bunch of planes when I turn around for a second attack. I try to avoid the black clouds and shift around somewhat, but otherwise I am quite stumped on the mechanics of AA and how to avoid them when attacking (yes, I am aware of the leap-frogging method with dive bombers, but that's about it). Any advice on how to avoid AA (apart from not entering AA range)? I am still quite unfamiliar with the new AA mechanics, so any advice would be helpful.
  13. Why is nobody complaining about this? The pathing for it is genuinely the worst I've ever seen in any game ever in my entire life. It still gets caught on islands, but now occasionally takes the scenic route to your waypoints that are like 4 km and straight reverse from where you are. How much money do I have to send to Israel to get them to revert the changes back? Academics please respond. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
  14. I recently saw a video where someone in the Hakuryu managed to get consistent very high damage with torpedo bombers alone. Seen here, this gave me hope that CVs are not completely useless now and Hakuryu could still do some great damage, so I got it on the public test (once the nerf came out) and my god what a mess. 1. The aim sight. Probably the biggest issue here alongside the catastrophe that is AA, apparently in a situation where they encourage you to swerve around to minimize AA damage, now you cannot even move slightly without the aim sight becoming larger than the map. The spreads are just so horrible now, and the arming time of the torpedoes makes it worse. You will have to drop from miles away where the enemy ship can easily dodge or else just have them bump uselessly into the hull. I don't know why anyone thought this was a good idea. 2. The AA power. Anyone who thinks the AA is underpowered is being dishonest, you cannot even go after a single cruiser, let alone a group of ships, without your squadron being wiped out or severely damaged very quickly. Moving around doesn't even help much, and just worsens your aim. Even destroyers can seriously hurt your squadrons now, and it's not limited to just the good AA ships. Tier 8s, and ships like Yamato known for being CV magnets can really mow down everything in your squadron, and you will only get about one attack run in before the squadron is useless. Honestly a good decrease in AA power would go a long way here. Because currently your squadron is being blown up just from enemy AA looking at them. 3. Restoration time. It's not like the above is compensated for by being able to rapidly send more planes into battle. Planes are destroyed so easily that torpedo bombers will take forever to fully replenish. 4. But what about rockets and dive bombers? Rockets can be quite nice for setting fires, but honestly you aren't gonna get very much long term damage from either. Bombs are too inconsistent and torpedoes have now been made obsolete. 5. "You're just not playing them right" I do not believe the CV should be a ship so difficult that only unicums and effectively play it, for the above reasons, it takes a whole lot of skill to make those attack runs work, which is uncommon. I am no new player, I had lots of experience with the main line Japanese cvs before the rework and have a couple tier tens. 6. People whining about CVs being "overpowered" Look, just because some rockets are hurting or spotting your destroyer or fragile British cruiser doesn't mean the CV is a huge threat to the whole team. As I said, any ship with any kind of competent AA is gonna punish those squadrons hard before they can do any real damage. If people would not stop complaining about the new carriers and actually realize they could be a good ship class if they stopped nerfing them to hell, it would be a much funner class to play now. Am I asking for CVs to be powerhouses with no real threat to them, absolutely not. But I just want these few issues to be fixed so they can just be more enjoyable ships to play. They probably shouldn't be as good as in that video, but they should at least be comfortable and competent enough that a decent player could get 100-200k damage per game and maybe even more in the rare amazing game. I hope the coming patches can address these issues and finally restore balance to the carriers.
  15. Wargaming, give us the night-capable, all-weather torpedo bomber we deserve!
  16. (Keep in mind I'm not a DD main) No matter what ship main you are you cant deny that DDs are in a rather bad spot right now between common CVs and Radar. So, I've thought of some ideas that can help the DDs out a bit (these may not be the best but they are better then nothing and Far better then just removing CVs bla bla blah) 1: Give Destroyers the Fighter consumable. This may seem odd to some but this will make a DD have Far better odds of survival when being attacked by Carriers, Some will argue that it makes no sense for a Destroyer to have the fighter consumable when it has no catapults. but to that I would argue that it would work the same way as the Fighter consumable for Planes where they call them in from the Carrier. After all Bombers don't have catapults. This also has the benefit of making it WG doesn't need to make so many Blanket Buffs and Nerfs to AA and planes to try to solve the issue. 2: Give all Higher tier Destroyers a Heal like Cruisers, I'm thinking around USS Kidd Level. This will make it that if a Destroyer gets attacked by aircraft or Radared it can at least get some HP back. Though of course the Destroyers like Khab that are based around their Heal will just have a stronger one. 3: (This is more of a change to all ships then just Destroyers) Manual Control of Large caliber Flak. (flack shells for Destroyers) So this is how i would do it: make it that the AA stays the way it currently is But for most ships there is a "4" Button that makes you take Manual control of the flak AA on the ship you are using. for battleships and cruisers this would be their secondaries. but for destroyers these would be their main guns so they would be a little different. While larger ships will just have control of their secondaries etc the destroyers would need to load "Flak shells" in loading these it would change the camera angle to be better suited for following aircraft and would allow you to lock onto planes like you would a ship, then a Aiming recital would appear (similar to the [edited] SPAA or World of Warplanes recital.) and then you fire Flak shells at the aircraft with lead and all Just like you would shoot a ship. this will Drastically improve AA performance but you would need to actually use your guns so this wont be a good idea when enemy ships are close. the AA would perform the same as it does now if you don't use the flack shells. While the last one is Unlikely i would Strongly advise the other two. If you can think of other things they can do for CVs Let me know of that and your thoughts on these ideas below.
  17. So I was thinking..... What is so balanced about a ship that can attack with impunity from the complete safety of the edge of the map because it has infinite range in the form of planes? I've been in games with 2 cv's where I was killed in the first 4 minutes of the game because both cv's decided to focus me before any other ship on the enemy team even had me in range and I could not retaliate because both ships were sitting so far back that no one could touch them. And lets be honest, AA is a joke. I was in a pack of other ships and the planes were still getting through. So, how to combat this? Give the planes fuel. What I mean by that is simple. The planes have a range that they are able to fly out, make attack runs and then be able to safely return to the carrier. If they go past the point of no return then the planes end up in the ocean having run out of "fuel". This will reward cv players that stay with their team and have a higher risk of their cv taking damage while punishing those cv's that like to stay back on the edge of the map because their planes won't be making it back hence a longer ready time for the next squadron. Every other ship has a range that they can attack at, why shouldn't cv's? And wasn't that historically accurate? Plane ran out of fuel, it ended up in the ocean. Just a thought.
  18. I see that about 80-90% of the possibilities to play this game involve aircraft carriers. So, basically if you don't want to face aircraft carriers you have only 2 options: (1) Tier I, (2) Tier II and if you are really lucky (that usually doesn't happen to me) some Tier III. Unfortunately, Tier I and Tier II are isolated with long queues and sometimes it's just 1 vs 1 ship that makes it a little boring. My proposal is, instead of growing high tier ships, why don't you offer as an alternative, older ships to play in Tier I, II and III? I think would be amazing to include pre-dreadnoughts, ships built between 1890 and 1905 and other ships in this period. There were several ships built in this period so there would not be needed to make up ships never existed. Also, I don't see the point to match St. Louis, Varyag, Bogatyr with aircraft carriers, makes no sense. Those ships were built in around 1900, aircraft carriers started to be built in 1920s, by that time those ships were completely obsolete and also in the naval warfare of this period (1890-1905), planes were not available (First Sino-Japanese War 1894-1895 and Russo Japanese War 1904-1905). This makes the game inconsistent. My proposal is to offer an alternative to play the game in a period where ships were indeed the key in naval battles, instead of forcing the player to play against aircraft carriers if is not interested. This can be achieved by adding more ships in tiers I and II, the higher tiers can remain the same, the game can be the same from tiers IV to X. There are tons of fascinating ships to explore in 1900s, but very few has been added to the game. I think that having flexibility to play is a good thing in a game, both worlds can coexist, why not? after all if we have even fantasy stuff... I think I am not asking too much...
  19. Here's Zoup's commentary calling for DDs to get the fighter consumable: So ofc this is totally ridiculous for a whole host of reasons on its face, which does not require detailing in any way, but is a great idea for a starting point to initiate a discussion: @NoZoupForYou idea is slightly off: What you do is you introduce a NEW consumable - one that CALLS IN a CV Automated Fighter (Radio-In Close Air Support), that is not in exchange for any existing consumable, but is baked in so it becomes permanent (some what similar to Atlanta's Permanent DAA - which is also an option for all destroyers: give them perma-DAA), you just adjust the cool-down time to limit the number of potential uses during a match, so it has to be used tactically and can't just be spammed by the DD player. CVs already have Automated Damage Control and an Automated Defensive Fighter; it shouldn't be beyond imagination for the same CV to auto scramble a fighter squadron just like the "T" Key Defensive Fighter Consumable, from the CV that can assist the DD when they realize they are getting primaried by the CV. And the way to offset abuse of this, is to have these assisting fighters have to come from either A) The existing CV's in flight Defensive Fighters, leaving it vulnerable, and introducing a cost if a team member calls it and reduces the survivability of their CV (which would be a bit unfair to CV player); or B) Any Defensive Fighters have to be called from the Carrier Deck, but are not part of the CV players limited squadrons, but are also not limitless either. Or if not this then give all DDs the option of fitting DAA but have it be permanent like the Atlanta perma-DAA, and don't keep nerfing CV performance; just adjust the efficacy of DAA on DDs commensurate with they're type and number of AA emplacements, and historical reference (yes I know the dirty words we dare never speak in this game: historically accurate - not accurate in this case just as a basis for development, and adjust for game conditions. Were some DDs really competent in their later AA designs during WWII or were some Nations exceedingly slow to retrofit if at all DDs for AA?, etc.) Anyway, I think this opens a good discussion, because imo not every solution needs to be a nerf; some solutions can be a counter 'buff' to another class that balances out the game play of how players are actually playing vs 'shoe horning' a class into the meta via a nerf. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, that's my 'two cents' to add to this interesting discussion. Please get in on the conversation and share what you think of this, or any other ideas to WGing, that would level out DD vs CV game play (if anything at all)? *(Oh and @NoZoupForYou - KAGA! :P )
  20. Hello! I always thought this was an interesting question. Aircraft carriers were frankly the game-changer for the big battleship-on-battleship engagements that dominated naval doctrine for years. They can send ordinance from the sky to eliminate heavily-armored warships without too many casualties to the attacker. While aircraft carriers were somewhat used in World War I by the British (HMS Ark Royal and HMS Furious), they didn't really hit their stride until World War II with Taranto, the destruction of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway and more. XX My question is this: If aircraft carriers were more heavily explored in WW1 (i.e. They were used more in engagements and had their equivalent testing battles...like a bombing of the German High Seas Fleet with British carrier planes. This is just a random example of perhaps a demonstration of good carrier aviation that could happen in a what-if WW1), how would've that affected WW2 naval battles? Under this, there are a few more questions: -How would've technology advanced with the rise of carriers from the prior war (i.e. rise in missile technology to destroy carriers? Better planes to avoid carrier AA fire?) -What mistakes do you think naval commanders would make with carriers in the beginning stages of the conflict? -How would that affect building strategy and the naval treaties during the interwar period? -Would some warships have been prioritized over others (i.e. more carriers vs the Yamato-class battleships for the Japanese? Graf Zeppelin-like carriers over Bismarcks?) XX Feel free to get creative with your answers and expand upon your own lines of observation. Thanks!
  21. Avenge_December_7

    Debatable CV Captain Skills

    From what I've gleamed from previous topics, videos, guides, etc. on CV captain skills, the CV captain setup for all nations should include the following: 1 point: improved engine boost air supremacy 2 points: improved engines 3 points: aircraft armor survivability expert 4 points: sight stabilization Indeed, this is what I have for the 5 carriers in my port right now (Midway, Enterprise, Shoukaku, Saipan, and Hermes). However, it's what to do with the 5 remaining points that has me confused. From what I've seen from other people's builds, they usually take any combination of the following: concealment expert (4 points) demolition expert (3 points) adrenaline rush (2 points) torpedo acceleration (2 points) last gasp (1 point) While I realize that demolition expert is useless for IJN CVs, I'm not sure about the rest. With the remaining 5 points, what captain skills should I take for the different CVs I have? How do they differ from nation to nation? Do the sets change (and if they do, how) as I move up the tiers (i.e. from Shoukaku to Hakuryu and from Hermes to Audacious)?
  22. One of the often-overlooked changes in the recent-ish patches was the addition of a 6s a relay delay to radar, where anything spotted on radar takes 6s to be lit up to allies to shoot it. Meanwhile, one of the big common complaints with CVs is their ability to spot things easily and effectively, particularly DDs, which rely on stealth instead of health (CV complaint threads are easily more common than the next several most common threads, combined). The extension of this spotting delay to anything planes spot seems to be a logical step. As far as gameplay is concerned, this would give ships more time to react to being spotted, perhaps hiding a citadel a bit better, getting a chance to smoke up, or finding cover before fire starts pouring in. It would also mean the window for firing on targets during the opening spotting run will be less usable, since the CV would actually have to stay for a bit to get spotting damage. Any thoughts?
  23. FineousFingers

    Sighting change idea

    I’ve only been playing this game for about 5 months, and only started following forums recently, so this may have been suggested long ago and dismissed as unworkable. I haven’t put too much thought into what effect this would have on balance. Change sighting so that in order to be able to see an opposing ship/squadron, you have to actually be in range to see it. No having forward units do your spotting for you. Instead, if an allied ship/squadron can see a unit, it appears on the mini maps of your allies. You know that it’s there, but not precisely enough to use targeted fire. I would apply this to hydro acoustic search and radar as well. This would simulate that one ship can see another and tell their allies where it is, but not precisely enough to target. This would hopefully take some heat off destroyers where carrier planes are concerned. I’m a CV main, and I often feel bad for hanging a squadron over a DD until my teammates delete it. But I do it anyway. What balance issues do you all see with this idea?
  24. So I just got out of a game where myself and another player carried our team so hard, bringing a 2v5 down to just us two (and our CV) hunting down their CV. We played our butts off even making it to that point. So here is where the "balanced gameplay" starts. I was chasing down the CV (an Audacious) and I had almost two minutes to shoot at him, and I hardly did ANY damage because he just turned away from me and ran. EVERY fire I lit only lasted 5 seconds, and of course I couldn't penetrate his armor with AP, so we ended up losing the game on points because WG thinks it was a good idea to cater to glue suckers who are apparently incapable to pressing the "R" key once or twice a game, something that most of the rest of us (DD's CA/CL's and BB's) seem to have managed to figure out. How is this fair to anyone? We understand the game and its mechanics enough to be able to majorly contribute to the team and yet we still lose because the CV can simply run and be almost invincible? HOW is that balanced??? What other ship class can simply sit in spawn, not risk his ships health AT ALL, and then at the end of the game when his team has been defeated and completely outplayed by two skilled players, he can still win by simply turning around and running? In many ways this problem is significantly worse than the artillery problem in WoT because while the arty can be quite stealthy and hard to find sometimes, its very easy to kill them once you find them. The rare time and artillery player manages to win the game for his team he HAS to either A: predict where the enemy player is and fire a blind shot that gives away his position; or B: wait for the enemy player to get close enough to spot him and risk a "shotgun" shot in order to kill him. Both options leave the arty player very exposed after taking the shot and an easy kill, which in my opinion, makes up for his ability to damage players without risking his tank. Now imagine that that same artillery player had a tank that had the same speed as the average medium tank, say 40-50kph (around 30-35mph I believe), AND had armor that made doing damage to him impossible if he angled it right, AND still had the ability to attack you while running away at a similar speed to your tank. Could you imagine the sh*t storm that the player base would make if such a tank existed? Well ladies and gentlemen, that is EXACTLY what CV's are in WoWS. They CAN be killed, even when angled, however it takes a very long time for only one ship, time that the CV has to continue to strike the player regardless of his angling. I have had even worse examples of this when encountering the CV's that have armored decks, where HE does NOTHING because it shatters, and AP does NOTHING because they can simply angle, bounce the shells and become damn near invulnerable. I've been saying it for years and I'll continue to say it as long as WG proves that they cannot balance this ship class: "TAKE CV'S OUT OF THE GAME OR GIVE US A WAY TO OPT OUT OF CV GAMES!!" NOBODY (and I do mean NOBODY) I have talked to is EVER happy when they see a CV in their game. It detracts from the fun and the overall experience. Yet conversely people rejoice when game modes like Ranked and Clan Battles and Space Battles come out because CV's aren't allowed, and they provide a refuge from the "sky-cancer" as they are so affectionately named. If WG wont listen to the community, the CC's and the Super Testers who TELL THEM THESE THINGS, then what as a community are we supposed to expect from the company in the future? The whole point of the beta was to TEST AND IMPROVE the changes they were implementing. ALL the CC's and testers I know of were saying that some of the things that I have mentioned and that WG has implemented were bad ideas and they still went ahead and did it. MAKING CV'S EXTREMELY RESISTANT TO DAMAGE IS NOT THE WAY TO BALANCE THEM. If WG can't listen to the community and balance a ship class properly that has been in the game for as long as CV's have been (what 3, 4 years now?), how can we trust that they will be able to properly balance something like submarines, which they have been for years saying they will never put into the game BECUASE they will be so hard to balance? Are we going to see something like World of Tanks, where the game dies because of poor choices made by the dev team? I LOVE World of Warships. I've spent waaaay too much money on this game because I enjoy it so much, so I really, really do not want to see it and its player base wane away and die because of something like CV and SS (submarine) balance issues when they have THOUSANDS of community members to ask and take ideas from. Now I know I don't have all the answers, and I know some people genuinely enjoy playing CV's both the RTS style and the 3rd person style. But the number of people in that group are so small it seems quite ridiculous to me that WG would attempt to please them instead of the vast majority of players who would rather see CV's out of the game altogether. If balancing the CV's isn't possible and we know from the beta tests that CV only game are NOT fun even for those who enjoy playing CV's normally, then what can WG do? What can we as a community do, or suggest to WG? I would really like to avoid a "flame war" in the comments, but would like to encourage constructive criticism, and solutions to this problem that WG can hopefully take notice of and consider implementing in the future. I know everyone who reads this, and everyone at WG wants what is best for the future of this game, but I do not feel like CV's in their current form should be a part of that future.
  25. Recently, I've been getting back into playing aircraft carriers for the first time since they got rid of the old 2/1/1 loadout on the pre-rework Lexington, just after the strafing mechanic was introduced. I bought the Hermes the day of the update and re-purchased the USS Ranger later that day as well. Ever since I've been getting a handle on just how on earth to use these things and while progress has been slow, I like to think it's been steady. Frankly, I'm enjoying the Ranger a lot more than I did the last time I had her; my planes aren't constantly getting swarmed and strafed by Japanese fighters. The Hermes on the other hand is a ship I am sucking to the high heavens with, mainly because I have yet to learn how to properly lead air-dropped torpedoes. Anyways, moving on. All this has caused me to regain a love for CVs, and has reminded me of one of the two reasons why I got into this game in the first place. The first was HMCS Haida, which is currently sitting in my port. The other reason was because of the USS Enterprise, CV-6. The most decorated and battle-hardened USN ship of WWII, possibly the most famous warship to sail the high seas since HMS Victory herself, and the ship at the center of the guilty pleasure of a TV show that I attribute as one of the reasons for my interest in WWII naval history. I feel awful, but this was a part of my childhood. It's not like I can hop in my TARDIS and tell my younger self to stop watching it! Now, back to the matter at hand. Because of my renewed interest in playing CVs, I've been wanting to add the Enterprise to my collection. The one problem is that she's not in the premium shop and I haven't seen an article on the front page saying if or when she'll be back in the shop. Now, I know that currently I can get the Enterprise (and the GZ, Kaga, or Saipan) by buying containers, but I don't really care about those other CVs; I just want the Enterprise. Also, the last time that I started spending on containers I ended up going on a spree that came back to bite me in the tail end something fierce and I do NOT want to risk that happening again just to get one ship. As such, I ask you, the other members of the forum community, these questions: Do you know if the Enterprise will eventually be available for purchase outside of a container again? If so, do you also know when she'll be back? Any answers I get are greatly appreciated, and I hope that if anyone else is looking for the Enterprise, they also find the answers they're looking for. Sincerely, 1Sherman. P.S. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go hide in shame for admitting that I liked (and still kind of like) a bad History Channel show.