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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 193 results

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

    Just got to know how the forum really feels about the rework.
  5. Out of morbid curiosity, today I decided to take my Essex out into battle just to see how many USN cruisers would be around...never again. Sure, I ended up doing a solid 128k and getting a King of the Air achievement, but the amount of defensive fire that round was horrendous: pretty much every torpedo drop I attempted ended up being messed up by defensive fire from a USN cruiser, and even the one that wasn't spread out still took horrendous losses from AA. I'm sure there are those of you viewing this post that absolutely despise CVs, to whom I say, you have been granted your wish (temporarily). Time to keep my CV head low until the craze dies down.
  6. I didn't ponder this but hey, I'm seeing no carriers. Almost as bad is the much lower DD count. These observations are tier 8-10 matches. I wonder how long the "Cleveland Effect" will be in play? Maybe a few days? glhf
  7. Limit carriers to only per team. Two carriers per side = sky cancer. It ruins every game. If you have a good ship like the Nikolia they both gang up on you and take you our first. Think about it this way, It seems like about 75% of Random Battles don't have a carrier. Then the other 25% have two or four carriers. So if we restrict CVs to two per game we will see them more often but the level of sky cancer will be reduced to a tolerable one. PS Personally speaking, CVs add nothing to the game IMHO but I acknowledge that the WW!! battles wouldn't be as authentic without them.
  8. My memory is fuzzy... too much sitting i reckon... too much cold, rain and snow too... I don't remember anything about this... Will there be carriers in ranked this coming season? I ask because of relative observations relating to carrier performances in random battles.The lack of parity between green and reds, based on those driving carriers, seems to be growing. We just played a tier X battle where our carrier finished dead last. It was like we had no carrier at all. The other team's carrier fifth place with two kills against us. Our carrier killed one plane. Well, one flight - but the results showed a 1 in the planes column... Having that type of carrier driver isn't good because most of the time, they park their planes over our dds/cruisers hoping for help I suppose, but in reality showing the reds where we are. Heck, he had any number of soloyolo red bbs he could have attacked but preferred not to do so. Anyhow... I can imagine getting this type of balance in a string of ranked battles... as it's been said before, no other ship can impact the match like a carrier, good or bad. In our case, bad. Bad. (I suspect we have to go back to pounding the Esc key if we see a carrier in the queue?) So has anyone heard/seen/read if they'll be participating? tiafyc
  9. When it comes to CV gameplay, assuming things leads to bad things. Cases range from everything like dogfight rng to torpedoing seemingly straight-lining ships that are actually turning in. I personally abuse this by making my fighters act afk or seemingly flee when I'm actually setting up a strafe on the advancing enemy fighters. The one that most affects your team, I have found, is assuming that one flank is safe just because something like an Atlanta or a Des Moines is there. Case in point, one game I had a few days ago in my Essex vs a Taiho, I decided to send both fighters to defend a group (with just 1 dd and 3 battleships) going to C because the A group had a Des Moines with them. One unmolested Taiho strike on the A-flank later, I check the A flank and find the Des Moines lagging well behind the rest of the flank, out of gun range of all of the enemy ships. I ask him if he could assist with air defense, but received no response. By the middle of the match, a Montana and an Iowa had advanced into B, thus cutting off my fighters from moving to A. Yet still the Des Moines sat far away behind the island. By the end of the match, the Taiho had gotten in around 4-5 strikes even though I had absolutely decimated his fighter reserves and attacked completely unmolested. Final xp results after victory have me in the top 3, and the Des Moines second from last, with barely 800 xp on a tier 8-10 victory. I checked his WTR, and he has around 40% wr over 3k games. Lesson learned, remember that AA ships can be piloted by potatoes as well.
  10. Brainstorming the CV Rework!

    Hi folks! After all the gnashing of teeth and tears about the upcoming carrier rework (without knowing the detail), I figured we could try our hand at making an educated guess about what exactly Wargaming has in mind. Please note this is not the place to come to talk about how you hate the CV rework, the game, or life in general. If you wish to just complain, there is already a thread right here and please feel free to post your rage there. Note, you are more than welcome to complain in that thread AND post your guess in this one! :) Anyone can post, although if you are actually privy to what that change is, don't. Aside from not being fair to the rest of us, you'd also lose your access to juicy secrets and no one wants that. Here's how *I* think they'll implement it. And I admit how I'd like to see it. Note the whole elevation aspect which I REALLY hope gets added to the game. - Two modes ... the standard full map mode (M) already in game, and third person point of view behind carriers or planes. Carriers and planes will still be selectable using number keys. Doing so will cycle the view between each one as well as which one you are controlling at the time. - Carrier control will be done the same way as all other ships: Mouse to pan around, and WASD to move. R for DCP and T for DF. Basically, what it is now. - Plane control on the other hand will be derived from World of Warplanes (or WT if you're more familiar with that): Mouse controls all movement with W and S for throttle and mouse clicks for shooting or dropping bombs. - Map mode can be used to auto fly any squadron/carrier where you want it to go, with full waypoint control just as it is now. And on top of that, there will be an option to control *elevation* (more on that later). Climbing up will slow down the planes. Climbing down will make them go faster. - You can only ever directly control a single unit at a time. So no issuing commands to multiple units all at once like you do currently. One squadron will need to finish a bombing run before you can switch to another unit to do a bombing run. - Inactive units (the ones you are not controlling) will steer clear of enemy AA. So if you have a squadron in holding position and an Atlanta pushes forward, that squadron will fall back to safety out of that AA bubble. Those planes can still take losses before that happens, though. Planes will not be invulnerable. BOMBERS: - Bombers can fly very high, as in way above AA cover. But they will simply not be able to bomb anything at those heights. They will need to drop down. - Torpedo bombers will have trapezoid style drop pattern like they do now. Above a certain height, that pattern will be red indicating they can't drop torps into the water without them simply detonating on impact. They will need to fly much lower. Once they are in the green zone, the lower they drop, the tighter the pattern gets. But obviously if they are very low, they'll be flying through heavy AA. The further out the drop, the water the pattern at target like it is now. Torpedo bombers will not be able to accurately drop from outside AA range, so Wargaming will likely make that drop pattern quite wide. - Dive bombers will use an aiming ellipse or circle just like it is now. Drop from too high up and that circle will be HUGE and you'll be very unlikely to hit anything. Drop from too low and you risk getting shredded by AA before getting the drop off. - In both cases, it will show you where the bombs/torpedoes will actually go rather than just a point on a ship. It's not auto click. You need to choose where it lands. BUT just like for the rest of the ships, there will be a time on target so you can try and judge where those bombs will land based on how fast you think the target ship will be sailing or whether you think they'll try a turn and dodge. - As you can see, this will indeed be very skill based, but very different from what it is now. The dropping and time on target will be much more familiar to surface ship players who will have an intuitive understanding of "ship will be here in 5 seconds, so I'll lead by x amount". And current CV players should have no troubles understanding it except instead of the current "dive bombers will overhead at this time", it'll be more like "dive bombers release bombs which will on target at this time" FIGHTERS: While the above I find likely based on what we heard, this section on fighters is pure guesswork. Overall, I don't believe you'll have the full manual control on fighter engagements like you will with bombers. But knowing HOW to control those fighters will still be very very important. - Like bomber squads, fighters can change elevations. This is very important. - If you use M (map) to tell the fighter where they will go, they will go to that spot and create an area of control. Within that area, they will attack any and all enemy planes that enter it. - You can also select a target for those fighters to defend. Either a ship or a friendly bomber squad. Or even another fighter squad if you wish to have multiple fighter squads clumped together. This could be useful by placing a fighter squad around a friendly cruiser's AA bubble where the double whammy of fighters and AA could make extremely short work of enemy planes. - You can also simply click on enemy bombers to force your fighters to chase them and engage everything around those bombers. Same with enemy fighters. This will be the ONLY way that your fighters will engage with enemy planes within enemy AA. Might be worth it. Might not. You decide. - Enemy bombers that get engaged by fighters will automatically slow down but still keep pushing to indicated destination. They'll of course defend themselves with their tail guns. This is very similar to what we have now. - Here is the tricky part: If the fighters engage a target at lower elevation, they will drop down to that level and have a significant DPS boost. If they engage an enemy at higher elevation, they will rise to that elevation but have a DPS penalty. This is basically an abstraction of the concept of energy in fighter engagements. Remember that it slows down your plane (horizontally) to move up to a certain elevation, so if you're in a hurry for fighters to go anywhere, you may need to fly low to get there fast, but there will be a penalty. Note, this also applies to fighter on fighter engagements. If one fighter squad has a big altitude advantage over another, the lower planes will die much quicker. Don't engage in dogfights with fighters above you! Fly your fighters towards friendly AA first! - I'm not sure they'll offer direct manual control of fighter squads in third person view. Could be that they'll be limited to M (Map) control, although you'll likely be able to go third person to watch the action up close. SPOTTING: This is actually fairly easy! - Spotting range on ships and torpedoes will be the same by sea AND air. - But spotting will be dependent on height too now. So if a DD's spotting range is 6km, you're never going to spot them if you fly too high. And remember, it's 6km in a straight line, so think trigonometry here. If you're flying your planes at 6km, you'll spot that DD when you're literally flying *directly* overhead. Want to spot them sooner? You'll need to drop down. So do you drop lower, lose energy and risk falling into an AA bubble just to spot that elusive DD in A cap? - As you can see, DDs will be A LOT harder to keep spotted than they are now. And you won't be able to spot torpedoes at all unless you're flying 1km above that DD, lol. And if you fly your planes too low, enemy fighters attacking them will be at a huge advantage. So yeah, that's about it. Was fun brainstorming this. The above keeps things fairly complex, but removes the really nasty levels of micro and entirely removes fighter strafing from the game as losing three full squads in two seconds is no fun for anyone. What about the rest of you? How do YOU think it'll be designed? Toss in your thoughts!
  11. Over the past couple of years, I've seen a lot of threads about how carriers at broken, need to be fixed or need to be eliminated from the game. I've picked up bits and pieces as to why carriers are the least favorite ship in the game, but I'd like a more complete breakdown of why you, think carrier play just doesn't work and what you'd suggest be done to fix it. Here's my list to get things started. 1) Driving a carrier is unlike driving any other type of vessel in WOWS: If you drive a Battleship and then suddenly move into a Destroyer, you still have the basic of how the fight the ship, fire and aim the guns, maneuver the vessel, so even though the ships are very dissimilar in how they effectively fight, the vast majority of the basic skills on how to get things done are transferable from one to the other. That's not true for carriers which require a completely different skill set. 2) Multi-tasking: When driving a normal warship in WOWS, you really are operating from a centralized command post. You aim the guns, fire, pop out of binoc view to quickly look around, maybe fire off some torpedoes and hit a consumables button but you are essentially doing one thing at a time from a centralized cohesive ship. With a carrier you not only have to look after your ship (or sit there like a rock waiting for someone to find you) and then guide and deploy each of your various air squadrons telling them where to go and then setting them up to scout or attack. There are shortcuts and various arcane functions you can use to handle this better, but they aren't exactly a big red "Easy" button and it can be challenging to know what they all are and how to use them effectively. Essentially running a CV means you may have varying tasks that require your attention and observation all over the map and you can only really deal with one of those at a time. It can be pretty easy to get overwhelmed. 3) Tier 6: Ouch. You've gotten the hang of Langley, Bogue, Hosho and Zuiho. Your fighters are screening and attacking, you've figured out how to get auto dropped torps and dive bombers effectively on target and then ... BOOM, everything changes. Red fighters wipe out whole squadrons in a single pass, and their dive bombers are dropping bombs down smokestacks and torps are being dropped at a distance of about a foot and cruisers with their shipborne AA make approaching any of them (except the brits) suicidal unless you give a lot of serious consideration as to how to use terrain. Your first response is wth, then that sinking realization that whatever is going on out there, you are woefully woefully woefully unprepared for it. You now have to use a completely foreign and additional skill set just to have an outside chance of surviving much less accomplishing anything, and while you are at it, the increased economic costs of repairs are pushing you into your first negative credit games. Your only hope is to pray that the red CV commander is as clueless as you are and that there are no T6 or better cruisers in the game to wipe your squadrons from the sky. The learning curve here isn't just steep, it's a straight up climb on a flat frictionless surface with a 100 foot overhang with barbed wire at the top. I think a lot of CV commanders hit T6 and quickly decide they really ought to be driving something else. I mean, if you can figure all of this out and somehow get it to work, you can be a ship killing God amongst women and men, but getting there is really really really painful. Those, as far as I can see, are the main problems. Solutions: It's a lot easier to point out what's wrong rather than how it can all be fixed. Somehow, the multitasking nightmare that is carrier combat needs to be eased. If there are functions which can help with that, they need to be more obvious and easier to execute within the game. The other issue is that the brick wall that is T6 has to be leveled a bit. I understand that WG is attempting to protect lower tiered carrier players from being seal clubbed by more experienced commanders, but in the process they've created a wall that is so daunting that it will turn away many players at T6. Personally, I feel mildly nauseous when I pull my Independence out of port. By very judiciously choosing my targets in Random I can sometimes manage to survive but at the moment I'm playing her strictly in Coop so I can learn some of these skills that really are essential for survival. I've gotten ok at the manual torp drop but I know I have to get better at that and figure out how to do the same with dive bombers, figure out how to strafe with fighters and hitting anything but a flock of migrating ducks and I need to learn how to use terrain to allow them to approach enemy forces without getting the squadrons wiped out in the process. All that added to the multitasking nightmare that already exists for carrier combat. Anyway, that's my take, what's yours?
  12. USS Ranger should be REPLACED !!!!

    The USS Ranger was definitely put into the game for very good reasons, but she is frankly UGLY and I think we should get a little sexier ship in the gameplay that few people have seen or heard of before!! Enter, USS Wasp: the forgotten warrior !!!!!!!! USS Wasp (CV-7) USS Wasp CV-7 was a United States Navy aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940 and lost in action in 1942. She was the eighth ship named USS Wasp, and the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. As a reduced-size version of the Yorktown-class aircraft carrier hull, Wasp was more vulnerable than other United States aircraft carriers available at the opening of hostilities. Wasp was initially employed in the Atlantic campaign, where Axis naval forces were perceived as less capable of inflicting decisive damage. After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta. Wasp was then transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 to replace losses at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. After supporting the invasion of Guadalcanal, Wasp was sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 on 15 September 1942. Wasp is just much sexier, has same displacement, same speed, same flight group size, same AA strength, and can be configured in the matchmaking system to perform just like Ranger. I think this would be a good change for the game and give players something new to play with!!! Any thoughts from my fellow wargamers???
  13. USN vs IJN Carriers (after changes)

    So basically, heard that the USN line got a few "Buffs" where the crap loadouts were removed and a more generic loadout was introduced. Is the USN line worth to spend some time into it? Or is it still not good
  14. You gotta think outside the box. 1. Cut damage alpha to 1/3rd or 1/5th its current level. 2. Increase plane shootdown rewards by 3x or 5x or 10x its current level. 3. Boost plane speed by 50%. 4. Shooting at ships spotted by planes (even if spotted via other means as well) gets a 20%/50%/whatever% bonus to dispersion. Sure, it's a bit ahistorical (I don't know of any CV planes used for artillery spotting). But the end result is that CVs turn into 100% support vehicles, they don't nuke crapanymore, and CV drivers are happy because they're getting great rewards and contributing to winning games. Then there will be more CVs. Then we can un-nerf IJN torpedoes. Balance instantly restored.
  15. First I would like to introduce myself. My name is John Daley, ( known as JedMad within the Game ). I am a disabled Vietnam Veteran, having served in the United States Navy during the 70's. My Grandfather and Great Uncles all served during WW2 and My uncles all served in the post war years throughout the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and the cold war. I grew up listening to tales from my grandfather and his brothers of the naval engagements that they experienced during WW2. That is probably why I also became a Naval historian of that period and have researched extensively every single Naval engagement during WW2 including naval engagements such as took place in the English channel between German MTB's vs British MTB's, Destroyers, and aircraft, Wolf pack attacks on convoy, all the way up to the Huge battles in and around Leyte Gulf in 1944. I have been playing Naval war-gaming since the 1970's when I and some friends would take our waterline models of ships with our calculators and tape measures, and commandeer a local parking lot every Sunday in Norfolk, Virginia and spend Hours and Hours re-fighting naval engagements. With the advent of computers I never lost my passion for the game. When I saw that you were releasing World of Warships I was pleasantly surprised at the Quality of the Game as well as the detail you have worked into the actual game play. As a pure gunnery/torpedo game World of Warships is unsurpassed. I also feel that there is some room of improvement however. That is why I have taken the time to present my views on how the game might be improved. I dearly hope that you will take the time to consider my thoughts on this subject. I enjoy everything about the game except for one thing. Carrier Play, I feel, needs to be re-assessed. I used to really enjoy playing Carrier's...until they introduced the strafing element into the game play. I do believe that the strafing element could be a useful tool for the above average player but I think that the idea that a single squadron of 4 to 7 planes could NEVER have had the ability to take out an entire strike group of several squadrons of Torpedo, Dive bombers and their fighter escort in one single pass. Historically, getting a jump on an enemy strike could disrupt any attack in progress but think about this for a minute. Could that single fighter squadron actually totally wipe out a large strike group that quickly? As an example of what I am talking about, If there is someone sending out a Japanese strike, of 2 TB squadrons ( 8 Planes ), 2 Dive bomber squadrons ( 8 to 10 planes ) escorted by 2 fighter squadrons ( a further 8 to 10 planes ), equaling a total of 24 to 28 aircraft or an American strike, group consisting of 1 Torpedo squadron ( 6 planes ) 2 dive bomber squadrons ( 12 to 14 planes ) escorted by 1 or 2 fighter squadrons ( 12 to 14 planes ), totaling 30 to 34 aircraft, and they are attacked by a single fighter squadron of between 4 to 7 fighters how could those few fighters actually destroy ALL of the strike group in one pass, especially if that strike group is escorted by fighter squadrons? My contention is that if you assume that every attacking fighter can shoot down one aircraft on that first pass, that would leave a large portion of that strike intact. If the strike group has No fighter escort it should take several passes to enable a single fighter squadron to wipe out all of the opposing torpedo and dive bombers. If on the other hand the strike group ARE escorted by fighters you must assume that, after that first pass, which would only take out only a small percentage of the attack group and any escorting fighters, the remaining escort fighters would then engage the attacking fighters to allow at least some of the attack group to proceed on their way to their targets. In conclusion, I believe that there has to be a serious re-work of how effective STRAFING works within the game. At the lower tiers of play, where strafing is disabled, Carrier play is MUCH more enjoyable but that quickly disappears as you begin to play the higher tiers. I like the way that escorting fighters would engage any attacking fighters before the attacking fighters could get to the strike groups at the lower levels of play. At the higher tiers where strafing is allowed escorting fighters have NO chance to engage attacking fighters unless you MANUALLY attack the incoming fighters long before they get anywhere near your strike group. I have heard all the arguments against changing the current way strafing is employed within the Game and I realize that this IS a Game, and doesn't necessarily reflect actual historical data on this subject. I believe, however, that once you have included Carriers into what was primarily a Naval gunnery and torpedo game, you should at least make Carrier play at least as effective, as far as the damage you can achieve, as when playing a straight gunnery/torpedo format. I know that to most players and big gun enthusiasts this issue may seem like a minor detail within the game, but if you want to keep a semblance accuracy involving The Aircraft Carrier's role in History you must admit that Carriers gradually supplanted big guns as the Capital ship to this very day. Carrier Play, as it currently stands, when you consider the High effectiveness of AA values as well as the way strafing is set up currently, almost NEVER enables a Carrier driver to achieve the kind of damage scores as can any other ship type within the game. Those of us who have achieved some success driving carriers would love see some modifications to how carrier play is currently configured. I hope that you will consider seriously what I have proposed. I feel that correcting this issue would only improve the game and make it more enjoyable for everyone else. Please address this problem.
  16. Curious.. just had a match with a Tier 7 (red team) Ranger and Ryujo facing off against our T6 and T5 carriers. Is this a thing? I apparently thought wrong - that a T7 would not face a T5, yes? Nobody was div'd. If this is permitted - how the heck does WoWS/WG even begin to consider that a fair fight, a balanced match?
  17. So, I occasionally run US carriers, with my highest being Bogue, with the intention of going further down as time went on, as a side project to running battleships. All was fine and good, I'd run matches a few times a week or even daily depending on how I felt, and even managed to get the good fighters and the AS configuration. I could dominate the skies on a good day, and often completely neutralize the strike ability of the enemy CVs! It was quite fun, and I could protect the lumbering battleships that I usually am in from air attack, which was also really nice. Fast forward to the present: I've been on a bit of a hiatus due to some now solved technical issues, and look in to taking Bogue out now that I'm back in the groove of things. But US CVs have had their AS loadouts removed, and while I have a reasonable strike capability, I'm unable to effectively counter enemy fighters, let alone strike craft, and instead it's now the Japanese who get AS options, further neutering my ability to dominate the skies. Instead, I now only get one set air group composition, and no options to change them. So, since the particular play style of carriers that I know and enjoy is gone, what should I do? Do I adjust and accept that I now can't counter enemy aircraft directly, altering everything I know and enjoy for the changes meta, or do I sell Bogue to fund the surface combatants I know and love, and never look back at my stint with carriers? Presently I'm leaning towards the latter option. Note that I'm unwilling to grind the Japanese carriers either, I haven't got any Japanese ships, I'm not a huge fan of them anyways. Not to mention that my particular tastes and sensibilities see Japanese carriers as rather ugly contraptions as well...
  18. Has Anyone Else noticed how US CV's have become unplayable due to the removal of a fighter group? I have Gone up against other carriers with 2 fighters groups and got my fighters removed (upgraded and have HP and DPS skills). Enterprise has 2 squads of each, Lexington has 1, Shokaku has 1/2/3, graf Zep has 2. Seems like the only way to get to 9/10 is by losing every single game, or buying your way to 9 and 10
  19. More CV's Per Battle

    In random battles, up to two carriers can be seen in a game on each team. I'm sure it is possible to see 3 in the game's code due to the training rooms limit to 3. However, the vast majority of games are CV 1v1s (especially in higher tiers) and it is always a roll of the dice to see if your opponent is blatantly better or has better fighter RNG than you. It has made carriers not very enjoyable to play. I really wish for at least 2 player divisions with CVs to be possible. It would be countered by 2 enemy CVs or 1 higher tier CV. I almost feel that more dynamic matchmaking for carriers would help many of the frustrating issues with them. Currently, if one team's CV is dominating another, there is not much the team can do to stop them. There is only one carrier to counter them, and they are not capable. Git Gud just isn't going to fix the issue with carriers. This may not totally fix them either, but at least make them more enjoyable and dynamic to play. The fact of the matter is, World of Warships is a team based game, and it is apparent that this game does not specialize well with 1v1's. So why do we force CV players to endure this on top of all the other issues with them? No wonder their population is so low...
  20. With the new update they made US carriers the top of the food chain again, starting at ranger I believe, you gain access to a 1/1/2 rather than a 1/1/1 that was standard for everything. But you can’t swap in for a 2/0/1 anymore, as the drawback of this new update. But it will get better. At Lexington(Tier 8) you may upgrade your DIVE bombers to equip AP bombs that can deal massive damage. These bombs were on the enterprise(Tier 8 premium carrier). At tier 9 (Essex), you have a 2/1/2, which is powerfull. Drawback, and it’s a big one, the fighters for the Essex only are stock tier 8’s and you cannot get tier 9 fighters. One thing is that the torpedo bombers past Lexington STAY at tier 8, with no upgrades to 9 or 10. But of course at Essex you can still get those AP bombs with tier 9 DB. Midway is probably the most beneficial from this update as it has a 2/2/2. With stock T9 fighters that can be upgraded to T10. Course you only have tier 8 torpedo bombers, but torpedo damage does not increase with tier. And you still get those awesome tier 10 AP dive bombers. In my opinion. Go USN as the AP bombs wreck havoc against most battleships and some cruisers, and the bombs have a INSANLY SMALL targeting reticule, that can be smaller than the superstructures on most battle ships. But you only get them at tier 8 and up. Moving on. IJN, where to start. Easy way to say how the play is swarm the skies. These carriers have a really good amount of squadrons. But that comes at a cost. When IJN fighters take a squadron of USN fighters, the USN’s are going to win, as the squadron capacity for all USN carriers is 6, beating the IJN’s 4. Plus the USN planes ( all types ) do more damage and more health. But since IJN has a 2 fighter load out that puts it a 6v8. I can’t say much more because I only really made it up to Lexington and never played a IJN carrier before. But the grind to the tier 8 Lexington is worth it because when you go into the first battle with your AP bombers bought ( point, you get stock HE so then you can upgrade them to the tier above with HE OR AP ) you can deal a CRAZY amount of damage on a battleship draining almost 7/8 of its health for certain types and if you get a good hit.
  21. CV gameplay Change

    (currently at t8 IJN and USN)(Not the most articulate so bear with me)(I am thinking of these new interactions like turn based games with attack options and viewing your match up of your units vs enemy units and selecting your options) Playing CV"s as a beginner is not really fun due to the learning curve and how punishing it is to lose planes at lower tiers. Later at higher tiers and having gained experience the issue starts with who has the better match up in MM or higher skilled cpt or researched ship, etc. So my suggestion to changing the game play of cv's could be defined as a complete overhaul. Change the interaction of planes with warships by selecting attack options on warships instead of the current auto/manual drop we have that can result in a poor or 0 damage to full damage 1 shot hit. For example some interactions/attack options for strike planes would be to have an aggressive attack on the warships that grantees the most damage towards the selected target, but at the cost of losing a significant amount of strike planes. There could be a defensive attack where its an even trade of damage to target while losing half or so planes. A critical strike attack option where the attack is directed at damaging/disabling modules on a ship such as turrets, firecontrol of guns, rudder, engine, etc which is dependent on AP/HE, torp/deep torp, etc. As for warships interacting with planes, i think they should still maintain the manual aim control of their AA but depending on the direction of attack of the plane (bombers) the warship could turn broadside to expose more of their AA guns and have a more effective DPS. The warships would obviously have weak spots where AA isn't as efficient and CV"s commander could exploit that. I think the need for AA def fire should be removed because ships should generally be together to support one another and cv's should be allowed to punish players that stray too far when they lack aa for self def. The same interactions should be taken to fighter planes where they can support strike planes with attacks and provide (SLIGHT) def boost or damage boost or surviability by taking some of the damage and evening out the losses. Again they could have different attack options where they can aggressively strafe AA on the warships or maybe even historically have IJN planes have kamikazi if there is one plane left on the squad. As for fighter vs figther (and quick google search) it seems that we should give the option to the commander of dividing or creating large squadrons depending on the play style or situation on the battle. As for as the outcome of these dogfights could maybe based on who attacked first, size of squad , tier, etc. Outcomes could be also influenced by warplane historical statistics such as IJN burning up easily while USN having the more durable planes, but these could be offset depending on the attack option each commander has chosen etc. Fighter vs Fighter attack options: the regular attack should be the same as above for strike planes where an equally moderate damage done to target while losing half or so planes. An aggressive attack on enemy target that can potentially result in high damage to target, but offset by RNG maybe? and have a chance to miss and get punished as a result. If fighters have divided in smaller squads we can maintain the current interaction of having one squad preoccupy enemy target and having another ally squad come in with a regular attack, offensive attack, or defensive attack on maintain enemy planes from main squad, but not dealing much damage. Some issues that need to be addressed is how can balance cv's pushing their planes to caps to intercept dd's and being blow up immediately due to being singled out. The actions chosen for each squad need to be smooth and not clunky, but at the same time showing clearly the possible outcome of your choice. (Probably some other balances i cant think of) (not very active on the forums but wanted to pitch in) Some miscellaneous notes: allow the ability for commanders to unite smaller squads such as strike planes so we dont have to waste planes or divide still healthy squads to allow for more versatility. Show range indicator from selected squad to selected enemy target so savvy cv commanders can maintain their planes away from their AA range Allow to cancel departures or landings of planes.. Sometimes you accidentally click the wrong squad and end up choosing a squad of fighters instead of bombers so you can kill that sneaky dd coming behind you
  22. Carriers in Clan Battles

    Now that we have had the experience of one season of clan battles, do you think it is unfair that Wargaming has once again not included carriers in Clan battles? Whether you answer yes or no, please state your reasoning below. Personally, I think that not including carriers in Clan battles was a terrible decision. It is very unfair for all of the prominent clans since they all have dedicated carrier players, and having to build specific captains and strategies to deal with playing without a carrier has created a lot of unbalance in the meta and a divergence from the standard play that is seen in random battles and all competitive events most of which are tier 10 and include carriers and are much better for it.
  23. Loss of Balance Between CVs

    I decided to take a look at the CVs again today. They used to be a good chess match against the other carrier to see who could control the other better. Well after a match (where things didn't go the way I expected) I decided to look at the tech trees. Why is it that the Japanese CVs get to choose different loadout options from the start pretty much and the US line is always stuck with the same loadout for each ship. This makes a huge difference in how players can play against each other. I like to counter out the other CV, neutralize its fighters and then harass its remaining planes while mine do their work between fighter engages. Well I used to be able to get a fighter focused group, can't anymore. Or if I wanted to focus on torping BBs, I used to be able to CHOOSE to focus on that too and take more torp squad loadouts, can't do that anymore either. WG, why make the change to one line where they can't change anything about their loadout besides what planes they take and not how many they take of each type like we used to?
  24. I have been playing WOW for a while but have only recently bought the Langley and am trying to understand the basic keyboard commands and symbols. Any resources anyone would recommend? Thanks!
×