Search the Community

Time for another rant, as making money, credits in this game is miserable, on top of it, then give us two CV's to then spend 4mil each equipping. Are you gonna fully refund us with interest? We can assume the interest could be what we could gain from battling with them, however they aren't needed to enter that mode, and my t8 ships I always play and am used to, will fare a lot better. So what's the point of giving a ship you will take away that we have to spend the games hardest resource to get, besides doubloons, on? NONE! What it really seems like is we are paying to TEST for them. So I don't know about all of you, but me personally, I cannot even afford to, unless I want to spend 8mil credits on a ship that will be taken away. So DONT be a fool and give into this, it shouldn't be acceptable to give a temp ship and not have it fully equipped, that must mean they want to make money from US TESTING! You can buy credits, exchange for doubloons and ship or commander XP, but they 100% KNOW that, which is why I think they did it, and its scummy. Can someone please give me a reason that is not scummy? Why give us a temp ship and have us spend 4mil credits on it? The only reason I can come up with, is they want to capitalize off their player base as much as possible. So when you ask, why doesn't World of Warships do this or that, it would make the game so much better. Well, because, every idea or implementation has to equate to money in their pocket. You might say that is normal, someone does work, they get paid, but then think of every other game you buy for a set price and it has updates. Sure Assassin Creed, Diablo, whatever cost 70-100 dollars, but so does 1 SHIP in this game. Like I mentioned in my last post, I have worked QA for 2K Games when we made Bioshock, so I know a bit about the industry from the inside. There are times when you make changes because you need to and they are not directly tied to profit, however, it seems every move they make always is tied to profiting. So I think you shouldn't test for free and accept these standards that if they make a change it always comes with random packs added as well, some new type of in game currency, that you can always buy with Gold to get the ship. Even when they want us to test a feature for them, which probably saves them money, they can't make it somewhat acceptable. If you been playing for years, you probably have the resources, and the fact you have to grind to get ships is a good thing, but some lines you are stuck in a miserable ship as basically bait. So the grind is not always that fun, and then they make new Spanish cruiser line with a double plated torp protection causing them to bounce everything, while I spent months grinding to T10 Venezia who is still one shotted every citadel by a battleship. Luckily for RNG otherwise I would probably be dead first salvo every game like every other cruiser but the Spanish. How about when they update a ships sigma by .005, oh amazing, thank you so much for editing a value that literally takes about zero effort and testing to implement. Working in software, I have implemented web application for Airports, Airlines, etc, and that sort of change to a value, is generic testing to make sure it doesn't break and that's about it. So really, Dev opens files, searches for the value, changes it, saves it, loads it up on testing environment, plays a game, done, send to production for next build. That probably takes as long as it took for me to type it out. So, when I say all updates are tied to profits, that is what I mean, adding ships, always random chests, always needing to buy with doubloons. The other updates are insignificant, I watch Potato and probably half the creators, North of the Sea, Mountbatten, so I see them go over the changes, and I saw the North Carolina sigma change that was NOT noticable. The RNG, the fact you have to lead further when they go away then when they come at you, what is that? All those are fixes they should work on or make, however, they aren't profitable. Working on bug fixes is not profitable, but putting out new product is. Again, I like the game and play it a lot, it is fun, and it is not easy to do. All the videos they put out explaining things, that all makes them money as well, and if you are constantly bringing out new features, people will always watch the videos. Updating things like RNG aren't fun or easy, especially to an audience, as it probably is more mathematical and not great for a video. Maybe I am being a bit harsh here, and this is not the case, they mix it up perfectly actually, and sure, however why release 2 TEMP CVs without the modules? At the least, people should be skeptical of everyone selling them something, always. Now I get that I do not have the seniority here, so take this all with a grain of salt, but I will never like random chance containers, or anything that seems off. Like giving us temp CVs that we have to pay in anyway for, maybe that is something they do all the time, yet this is my first time seeing it. Maybe their motivations are not what I am saying, and maybe it is all exactly what they say, but a little weird, especially if credits are so difficult to come by. Like I said, I have heard it was worse, so I am glad they are getting better, but I am sure it wasn't because NO ONE said anything and kept their mouths shut. Most likely, the reason for the change is always the overwhelming discontent of the players, so I would argue it is critical posts like these that highlight their issues.

So I didn't spend enough time grinding the event to get the Brisbane or Matilda Kelly but I was able to spend the points on four air-drop containers. I got two CVs from them, Hornet and Chkalov. Personally I would have preferred some of the other ones you could get from the containers but I still can't complain too much about getting two premiums for a relatively low cost. Hornet though, how do I play her? It's nice having a historically important ship but her air-group with TBD Devastators and SBD Dauntlesses looks woefully obsolete at T8. The B-25s are a nice touch and it looks like their model even has the fake tail gun position, I presume I try to target big ships parked bow-on with these? Chkalov doesn't seem too bad and is apparently a Soviet carrier design considered in the late 1930s. I'm not sure why this ship wasn't their tech-tree T8 instead of the current one which is evidently a design for a repurposed Kronshtadt class battlecruiser hull post-WWII. Any advice for these ships? Did any of you who opted for air-drop containers get anything good yourselves? I don't play much carriers but maybe with the premium bonuses they'll be more tempting to try.

Howdy, everyone! I'm recently coming back to this game after a couple year hiatus, and I see that a lot of why I left in the first place is still here and then some. I think we've all been where I was a few years ago. You're trying to be stealthy in your destroyer or attempting to go unspoiled at range in your cruiser or battleship but those darn planes just won't leave you alone and are lighting you up for all their team mates to shoot. It can be pretty rage inducing. And now one side can have planes for spotting when the other doesn't with all these hybrid ships getting introduced. Information is a big advantage in World of Warships. My suggested change to planes would limit this information advantage without completely negating it while still maintaining some sense of realism. This change is: - Only allow planes to provide visual spotting for the ship that launched them. - Still allow planes to locate and display targets for allies on the mini map. Fundamentally, this changes gameplay for carriers and hybrids very little, but it limits the advantage that spotting provides for their team without completely removing it. Skilled players will still appreciate knowing an enemy's location and may even be able to capitalize on it with precise aim using the mini map. But surface ships now would not be disproportionately punished for being detected by aircraft. I've heard changes of this sort suggested a few times in other places, but I wanted to voice my support for them in a post here. I feel as though they create a healthier environment for surface ships without changing the gameplay experience for carriers and hybrids. Thank you, everyone!

Woo Hoo... It's been four years since the CV Rework. What have we given up, and gained in return? In general; we gave up a system that may have been difficult to master, but which worked in most aspects. It had a manual attack system to increase accuracy, and an auto attack system for those willing to accept less accuracy for quicker play, as well as the same reticle autolock and tracking every other ship had. We gained a system, supposedly easier to use, which traded everything good and easy to use in the old system, for a 100% manual attack UI, without the reticle autolock tracking every other ship has. If someone was bad with manual attacks before, they likely won't be any better with them now. In specific; we gave up a fixed number of aircraft, requiring a carrier driver to be careful with how they were used. We gained a more open-ended aircraft total. We gave up long periods between aircraft attacks, and the relief and chance for movement without being spotted that provided to regular ships. We gained faster times between attacks, and fewer actual chances to be spotted, (one squad instead of multiple squads,) but at the cost of almost no relief from potentially being spotted for regular ships. We gave up a AA system with greater depth, and obvious effects when it came to disrupting attacks. AA ships could do their job, and for the most part protect allies. For a carrier driver, the reticle expanding was bad, but at least they could still see their targets. We gained an AA system that is much more simplistic, but which can be gamed to little negative effect by a carrier driver with good twitch and manual attack skills. Depending on a few things, it doesn't pay to use AA builds, and former AA ships often seem to have no effect against attacking aircraft. For a carrier driver, AA is either a non-issue, (good twitch skills dodging AA,) or completely devastating, (AA puffs or point-blank AA ambushes wiping out whole squads.) For good measure, AA puffs often make it impossible to even see the target, never mind trying to aim at it. We gave up Bogue, Zuiho, Independence, Hiryu, Essex, and Taiho, on the promise they would eventually return. We gained a number of 'real' ships in return, some historical to lesser or greater degrees, but also enough paper designs to choke a whale, with gimmicks to match (-) Roughly 4,200 RTS played; 2,300 FPS. Hey WG; I still hate your (redacted) carrier rework. RTS was more fun, for me personally. As I've said many times; it's like being an admiral in a CIC, or a CAG, directing and watching his squadrons from above. In addition, you could actually protect allies with your fighters, even if you couldn't use Strafe. FPS carriers are so simplistic and dull. Even good games elicit no real satisfaction. You watch the backside of your planes, attack a single target, and rinse and repeat until the single squad is dead, or you run away. 'Protecting' your allies with fighters has become a joke; one which depends on the foolishness of the enemy, and the whims of your dropped fighters locking on to an enemy.

Introduction: Detonations (Quick and Easy): Carriers (This will be long): Subs (You knew this was coming): Superships (Yeah, I hate every new class released in the past year, bite me): Destoryers (Weren't expecting this one?) Border Riding (Addendum 1): Permanently Destroyed Modules: (Addendum 2): Closing Statement:

AKA, How Secondaries Actually Work, and Why They Should be Changed: Episode 4 Episode 1 / Episode 2 / Episode 3 Good day ladies and gentlemen! With the news of Soviet submarines receiving... mixed responses, I decided to give everyone something else they love to talk about - aircraft carriers! Ok, so maybe CVs aren't the most popular class in the game, but I hope you'll agree that this topic is going to be worthwhile. Let's talk CV secondaries. Many of you probably remember when the developers standardized cruiser and battleship secondary battery firing ranges by nation and tier: German and French battleships and cruisers got longer range, while every other nation's ships got slightly shorter ranges. Overall, the non-German and non-French ships did receive a buff to range. I believe that this was a good change - it makes it much easier to remember the secondary firing ranges of the common secondary-built battleships. However, if you read my last post (Episode 3) you'll know that I personally think that the range on all battleships and cruisers should be standardized, amongst other changes, but I won't get into that. If you want to check that out, I have provided the link above. So what about every other class' secondaries? Well, there are a grand total of five (5) destroyers with secondaries. There's the Tier II Japanese Umikaze, Tier VII Commonwealth Huron and Haida (both tribal class destroyers with the same secondary turret), Tier VIII Commonwealth Orkan, and USSR Tier VIII Kiev. Their ranges are 2km, 4km, 4km, and 5km, respectively. So, yeah, not much to talk about there. So far, both Tier VI and VIII feature submarines with secondaries, although there just aren't many subs in the game to make discussing them worthwhile. Yet. That just leaves aircraft carriers. Eight separate nations now have aircraft carriers, with five full tech trees (Japan, USA, Germany, UK, and USSR). Many players know that German aircraft carriers come with very accurate secondary guns, and when built for them can put up a fierce resistance against lightly-armored opponents caught within their reach. The ever-popular Graf Zeppelin boasts the most accurate secondary battery in the game, and can deal immense amounts of damage in the right scenario. But what about every other CV? Well, there just isn't anything consistent, except for one thing. Tiers IV, VI, VIII, and X of each nation have no standard range - they're all over the map - except for super-CVs. Yes, that's right, every super-CV released (and to be released) thus far has an impressive 7.3km base range. This might seem meaningless right now, but by the end of this post you'll understand why super-CVs receiving "special attention" is so ridiculous. Let's start with some basic stats: the current ranges of CV secondary batteries. Tier Germany U.K. U.S.A. Japan USSR France Italy IV 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 VI 5 4 4.5 4 5 5.6 VIII 6.625 4.5 4.5 4.5 6.6 6.625 X 6.85 5 5 5 7.3 XI 7.3 7.3 7.3 Outliers Graf Zeppelin 6.25 Hornet 6.6 There are so many things that irk me about these numbers. First of all, zero consistency. Second, Graf Zeppelin has worse range than some of the other Tier VIII CVs?! Hornet gets 6.6km base range versus Lexington's paltry 4.5 km (literally 2.1 km = 46.7% more range). Third, what's with the 6.6km versus 6.625km secondary ranges? This makes no sense... there is absolutely no value in an extra 25m range. Fourth, what possible reason could there be for the perfectly balanced Nakhimov having the best secondary battery range at Tier X at 7.3km? Oh yeah, it has the Russian 130mm secondary dispersion (see Episode 3 for details), which is better than the standard dispersion that everything that isn't German gets. So yeah, best range and second-best accuracy at Tier X is on a Russian aircraft carrier. Why am I not surprised? Now, let's look at the super-CV situation. Notice how the UK, USA, and WIP Japanese super CVs all have 7.3km range. That's 2.3km better than their Tier X predecessors in every single case. I hate to be cynical, but I can't help but feel like this is clear evidence that WG knows that 5km secondaries is trash in high-tier games, which is why Nakhimov also has best-in-class range. This 7.3km range is not just some random number drawn out of a hat. WG have deliberately chosen this number so that there is the smallest gap possible between a ships minimum detection radius and it's maximum secondary battery firing range. Taking the concealment module (-10% detection radius) and the Hidden Menace skill (-15% detection radius) and using all secondary range skills and upgrades means that ALL three super-CVs and Nakhimov can achieve an 11km firing range and have 850 meters or less distance between their minimum surface detection radius and maximum secondary battery range. To be clear, I'm not complaining about super-CVs having decent secondary battery range - I'm complaining about the abysmal ranges of the UK, USA, and Japanese CVs from Tier IV to X. The secondary skills in the captain skill tree only exist to appease German CV players. When was the last time anyone saw a secondary-spec Implacable? Trust me, I was crazy enough to try it, and it's beyond awful. So what's the point of my rant? Well, I'd like to see some sort of standardization of CV secondary ranges across all tiers. This presents some balance issues, but nothing game-breaking. I propose that all nations' CVs use the following base ranges: Tier Range (km) IV 4.5 VI 5.6 VIII 6.6 X 6.85 XI 7.3 This means a nerf of a whole 25 meters to the likes of Aquila and A. Parseval. Oh, the humanity! This also presents an issue with Audacious. She has access to a legendary module that provides a -15% detection bonus, and stacks with the concealment upgrade (-10% detection) and Hidden Menace (-15%) for a total of 9.31km. Boosting her secondary battery range from 5.0km to 6.85km would allow her to have stealth secondaries. Whilst I would love to see that in action, it's probably best for the game that this idea dies in a cold, dark place. Still, imagine being able to kite a cruiser while keeping it spotted the entire time with your planes, peppering it with HE shells! In Audacious' case, I think that this could be easily fixed with a simple nerf to secondary range built into the legendary upgrade. -12.5% would suffice, but -15% would probably just be easier, and still gives a full stealth Audacious a gap of 0.25km between detection radius and maximized secondary range. Easy. The only other area where my proposed "standardized" ranges cause issues is with Ryujo and Shokaku. Japanese aircraft carriers characteristically have excellent stealth for their size, and so buffing their secondary ranges would result in both of the aforementioned ships being able to run stealth secondary builds. This could be fixed by increasing their surface detection radii slightly, which shouldn't affect their battle performance significantly. Add 0.4km to Ryujo's surface detection radius and 1.05km to Shokaku's, and voila, problem solved! Don't worry, both ships are still plenty stealthy: 10 and 13.1km base, respectively (versus their current 9.6km and 12.01km). "But wait," you say, "doesn't that mean Nakhimov will be nerfed?" Yes, yes it does. Isn't it great? I would like to follow up this post with a quick note that I don't think buffing CV secondary ranges is all that is required to make running them on non-German CVs plausible. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the Standard secondary dispersion formula needs to be buffed so that they can actually hit something. Otherwise, it's just fireworks and a waste of skill points. I also want to point out that I do not think this is a game-breaking, must-address-immediately issue. This can wait a year, for all I care - it's not hurting anyone right now, but I would like to see changes come to secondaries at some point in the future. I don't want to have secondaries be an "automatic click-and-win" button (there's no skill or fun in that), but in their current iteration everything that isn't German or an American premium secondary BB could really use some love to increase ship build diversity. WG, please consider the suggestions I've made above and the discussion to follow!!! Well, that's all for now. Thanks for reading, and I hope you at least found this discussion amusing, if nothing else. If you like what you see in this post, please consider checking my previous post about secondaries and the upcoming dockyard ship Admiral Schroder in my previous two posts (links below). Take care folks! Episode 1 - Why Admiral Schroder is Doomed to Fail as a Secondary Brawler Episode 2 - Manual Secondary Skill for BBs - Misleading Info Episode 3 - Let's Make Secondary Gun Battery Builds Great

The only option for how absurdly broken and ridiculous carriers are is that this is a bug. It is clearly not intentional that a carrier can take 1/3 of your life off your ship at the start of the game before you've so much as seen an enemy ship. In fact, anyone has seen an enemy ship. It may be an equal possibility that the game developers have some sort of bug in their thinking, I'm not sure how to describe such a bug, but I can tell you it's output. The devs come up with a brilliant plan "Let's make carriers more appealing" and then subsequently forget that the entire rest of the game exists. This bug may be known as "Alzheimer's" and it should be fixed if that's the issue. Regardless, let me explain the outputs of this bug. Player downloads game that's absurdly large. Player thinks that absurdly large game will be fun. Player opens game and plays low tier game. Player decides "Hell this is fun!" Player gets anywhere near tier 4 and thus encounters carriers. Player finds out game is no longer fun because air cancer can simply not be stopped and absolutely will wreck your ship regardless of how much you spec into anti air or group together with other ships. Player gets near spending money on the game and then thinks "Why? This isn't fun". YouTubers continually comment on this bug. Devs do nothing after finding out that they can ignore the players base for a decade in World Of Tanks. I'd submit evidence for this bug, but everyone knows it exists. It'd be like submitting evidence if the game didn't load for 99% of the player base. Fix it.

Yes, this is a CV thread. I want to keep this thread productive, so please refrain from posting inflammatory comments. That out of the way, let's get to the point: I was misinformed about how to improve my torpedo bombers. I'm not a good CV player. In fact, I'm a pretty terrible CV player. I've played a fair bit of the UK CVs, and purchased the X Max Immelman with coal. I like these ships for their torpedo armaments, which are powerful against big, slow targets like battleships. Naturally, I wanted to take all of the skills and upgrades to improve the performance of the torpedo bombers to make them the best they could be, right? Well, no, not exactly. Let your Uncle Murrel explain. When you look at your CV torpedo bombers in port, you see several values: plane HP, plane speed, torpedo speed, arming distance, etc. This is good and all, but it's kinda deceptive. The key variable that is not shown is arming time. Arming time is what defines torpedo arming distance. The shorter the torpedo arming time, the shorter the torpedo arming distance, the closer they can be dropped to a target. So, let's assume that you want to play the X Malta, the newest CV to be added to the live server. Malta has a powerful torpedo bomber squadron with 35 knot torpedoes and a 470 meter arming distance. Previously, I would have wanted to take the Aerial Torpedoes Modification 1 (slot 3) upgrade and Swift Fish (2-point) skill. Both grant a +5% speed boost. Keeping in mind that the bonuses are multiplicative (not additive), the resultant torpedo speed would be 38.6 knots. So, my torpedoes should hit the target sooner, right? Yes and no; it's complicated. Assuming you want to drop your torpedoes as close to the target as possible, then the answer's no. The arming time is still the same as before, so while the torpedoes do travel through the water faster, that means they have to travel further to arm in the same amount of time. So, the target has the same time to react, but the torpedoes have to be dropped from further away in order to arm. This isn't really an issue, unless you're trying to drop torpedoes close to islands and whatnot. However, the torpedoes will hit your target sooner as you drop your torpedoes further from the target. So, it really depends on how you like to drop your fish. Let's assume you now add the superly-originally-named Torpedo Bomber skill, which reduces torpedo arming distance by 10%. What this actually does is reduce the torpedo arming time by 10%, allowing your torpedoes to be dropped - you guessed it - 10% closer to the target. So, you've equipped the Aerial Torpedoes Modification 1 upgrade, the Swift Fish skill, and the Torpedo Bomber skill. This has to mean your torps are waaaaay better than they were stock, right? LOL nope. In fact, the arming distance is a whole 0.781% better. Literally less than 1%. The thing is, the speed buffs and the torpedo arming distance buff effectively cancel each other out. Sure, the torpedoes are faster and will hit targets that are further away sooner, but the torpedo arming distance is basically unaltered. So, what does this all mean? Well, here's my opinion: the torpedo speed bonuses are not worth it. In fact, they are detrimental. Let's face it, the 35 knot torpedoes found on most CVs are too slow. 38.6 knots with both speed buffs is still too slow. Fast/maneuverable targets will be able to dodge targets with the same ease. Battleships will still get punished (sorry). However, taking the Torpedo Bomber skill alone is, in my opinion, a much better skill. As mentioned above, it allows torpedoes to be dropped 10% closer and enemy ships have 10% less time to react. Do not take the Swift Fish skill or the Aerial Torpedoes Modification 1 upgrade; any other skill and upgrade is a better investment of your skill points and/or credits.

Since I’ve been back playing again I’ve noticed that carrier planes are much more invulnerable to AA now. It used to be we could at least half way defend against them. It seems like subs are just getting shoved down our throats whether we like it or not. I’ve been trying to figure out why Wargaming made such changes and made carriers such an overpowered and protected ship. They seem so overbalanced as they are now. It’d be nice if Wargaming would give us a hint as to why and what the future holds. All I’ve seen so far is Wargaming creating an in-game environment where anyone who plays carrier or sub is constantly maligned and cussed by everyone else. Wargaming says this shouldn’t be happening but they’re the ones that have caused to happen. So I guess my question is this, Wargaming what are you going to do to take the pressure off and fix it so all ship types can be enjoyed and feel balanced? Or do you as a company even give a ....

A perhaps doomed notion from the start given how WG reacts to player feedback, but this is a serious attempt at ideas to bring carriers into line with the rest of surface ships in game. I add that these are opinions based on my own experiences in game and as such welcome other peoples input on the matter. To preface there will be a few topics not addressed in this post namely: 1. Ship AA, this is a suggestion of changes to CVs and their Squadrons not to the AA of all ships. That is a topic for another post. 2. Return to RTS, all suggestions here will remain within the confines of the 8.0 update and beyond as it is wholly unrealistic to expect WG to undo such a radical change in game mechanics of a class. Let's begin this in a (relative) order of immediate problems: Squadron Regeneration: This is quite possibly the worst offender (besides spotting) of destroying any attempt at balancing this class. No matter what tweaks are made to plane health or damage output cannot overcome the fact that planes come back after dying. This creates a negative loop of players feeling helpless when they shoot down airplanes and it feels as though nothing is accomplished by it, when the carrier is replacing a lost aircraft every minute. So the most radical idea on this post shall be the removal of the plane regeneration mechanic. Being able to know that an Aircraft Carrier has 20 torpedo bombers total, and only 20, will be a monumental change in both the attitudes of the carrier player and those they are attacking, with each aircraft shot down actually contributing to removing the CVs striking capabilities from the game. Carriers will do less early strikes and instead focus on scouting caps and preserving squadrons for meaningful attack runs that impact the game state. For balancing purposes WG can look into adding aircraft to certain squadrons to account for the lack of regeneration, or to increasing HP of squadrons themselves. Spotting: This won't be nearly as long since WG has announced it is testing out changes to carrier spotting mechanics. This is more of an endorsment of the Radio Spotter concept, that requires that aircraft be within a set distance of allied ships in order to spot a hostile ship. I would only add that there should be difference distances required based on the ship class with dds having to be the closest with far more leeway being given to BBs. Fighters: As little interaction as the currently is between surface ships and aircraft carriers; there is arguably less between the carriers themselves. Fighter squadrons when not upgraded are used mostly as spotter craft since they do not stop most attack runs, either because the squadrons attack from too far away (skip bombs) are too fast to lock on (Hakuryu, Immelman, Richtoven,), or actively have mechanics that render fighters nigh on useless (Nakimov). Simply put fighters need to be more dangerous on baseline with an increase of radius of around 20% (the increase that the 2 commander skills combined grant) and a reduction of lock on time of about 40% (half of what the commander skill Lightning Reflexes grants). Skills such as interceptors and increased fighter consumables per squadrons should remain the same but the fighters as a baseline should be far more dangerous to attacking aircraft. Normalization of Mechanics: CVs should detonate, I don't like the detonation mechanic but it is in the game and so long as it is everyone should suffer equally, no exceptions. The fire mechanics of cvs are inexplicably odd, only lasting a few seconds with a damage control party that is on autopilot and has a 1 minute action timer. To simply this needs to be rendered as a BB fire system with a BB damage control party. There is now the ability to map buttons on the equipment list so there is no reason that a carrier player cant use DCP while using their aircraft. These are my current suggestions to WG and while I did start this article by saying this is perhaps doomed from the beginning. I enjoy this game enough to post this and try.

Anyone have any success with this carrier? It's a carrier bought for coal. But Its planes get absolutely slaughtered on attacks in tier 8-tier 10 games, even avoiding dense AA clustered ships and going after the stragglers. There is a squadron heal, but that's rather pathetic. plane speed and hit points look fine on the stats. Armor, damage reduction, captain skills......I tried changing them around, but nothing seems to work. Is it just another case of wg throwing in a fantasy ship and planes and adding the good old russian bias they have? Is the carrier supposed to be a secondary build and charge into the fray as a brawler? Sure, the squadrons are large, and you can do the trick of attacking twice to save the squadron numbers and go suicide attack with just 4 planes, which may not make it through the AA to even get a shot off. Not sure why wg cannot do anything decent except the graphics. Waiting for them to add gold AP rounds and nerf HE, so it's more like the messed up WOT game. Maybe add MTB's and PT boats to give it the face paces (wheeled) aspect like in wot.They put in subs and look how messed up those are. No subs back in WW2 could go as fast as a DD or cruiser on the surface. They were dead slow underwater also. Also, the ping mechanic is pretty bad. What's next, magnetic torps? Not sure why anyone would spend $ on a game so questionable like this. No good software company would pull this sort of stuff and stay in business.

A question I have been asked many times while streaming is "When should you go after the enemy CV and try to snipe him early in the game" I talk about that as well as demonstrating a quick CV snipe in Ranked in this video! Hope it helps, and happy hunting! Link for those who can't watch embedded

American Tier VIII Carrier: Enterprise ‘42 Oh, Boy. Time to Stir the pot. However, with the release of Hornet, I thought it was time to pay homage to her much more famous sister: Enterprise. We all know about Enterprise, already in-game, overpowered, etc. However, this will be a 1942 fit, circa Midway-Guadalcanal. (So no SB2Cs with 29400 drop alpha) She will have may similarities to sister ship Hornet,The purpose of bringing a 1942 fit Enterprise is similar to Belfast ’43. Enterprise ‘42’s purpose is to give new players, or players who do not own the original Enterprise, to obtain, and command this historic ship, in perhaps her most famous outfit. Of course, feedback is always appreciated in the comments. Now, lets get into the nitty gritty, Enterprise ‘42 HP- 50,000 Torpedo Reduction- 28% Speed- 32.5 Knots Turning Radius- 1000m Concealment- 14.2km Note: Exactly the same hull as Hornet. AP Dive Bombers: SBD-5 Dauntless HP- 1890 per Aircraft Speed- 122 knots Speed, Boosted- 157 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 16 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Bombs in Payload- 1x Mk.1 1600lb Bomb Bomb Alpha Damage- 3750 Per Bomb, 15000 Per Full Drop Note: Larger bomb than on Hornet, while only doing slightly more damage, it has the more typical dive angle of other American carriers, and it has better penetration; getting through to citadels of tougher ships, like heavy cruisers, battleships, and carriers; while over-penning lighter ships. Torpedo Bombers: TBD Devastator HP- 1750 per Aircraft Speed- 112 knots Speed, Boosted- 147 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 12 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Payload- 1x Mk.7 Torpedo Torpedo Alpha- 4667 Torpedo Speed- 35 knots Torpedo Range- 3.0km Torpedo Arming Distance- 344m HE Dive Bombers: SBD-5 HP- 1890 per Aircraft Speed- 122 knots Speed, Boosted- 157 knots Aircraft per Squadron- 8 Attacking Flight Size- 4 Aircraft on Deck- 16 Aircraft Preparation Time- 1/62s Bombs in Payload- 2x Mk.17 350lb Depth Bomb Bomb Alpha Damage- 3100 Note: Has the shallower dive angle of Hornet’s AP dive bombers, with the bombs falling quickly, and the squadron having a very short delay to set up a run, allowing strikes on small, fast targets like destroyers and submarines. Fighter Patrol: F4F-4 Fighter Patrol Size- 8 Fighter Patrol Radius- 3.5 Duration- 90s Charges Per Squadron- 3 Notes: Enterprise is famous for her fighters, escorting Hornet on the Doolittle Raid, through to the end of the war with her pulling a continuous combat air patrol for 174 hours over Iwo Jima. While in this 1942 configuration she only has F4Fs, they are more numerous and have a quick reaction time, able to quickly intercept enemies in the patrol radius, at the cost of spotting, much like Bearn, however the consumable is only available on dive bombers, with torpedo bombers not getting a fighter patrol, emulating the destruction of the TBDs at Midway. Editors Note: I hope WG goes with this, instead of throwing Enterprise (Original) in an auction, which will inevitably result in her being way overbid and going for $100+ along with being limited run.

Intent To make carrier gameplay and it's counterplay more fair, interesting, and deliberate. Feedback apprciated. TLDR Carrier spotting is nerfed to no longer "light up" targets Nerfs on CV's alpha damage Add "Re-Arm" Times to CV Squadrons Add duplicate squadrons for CVs to manage (depending on carrier for balance) Limited Hangar and Deck Space Buff to DFAA and Catapult Fighters Re-introduction of proper fighter squadrons. "Flak Zones" so players can dictate flak fields and actively deny aircraft attacks. Due to Aforementioned changes all carriers are rebalanced and attain new playstyles revolving the new mechanics of carriers and counterplay. 1.) Spotting For long CVs have posed issues in terms of spotting mechanics. Currently when an ally goes within the spotting range of an enemy ship that ship is “lit up” for both them and the team. For surface-to-surface spotting, this makes sense, as a player risks their own detection to detect the enemy. This poses a problem with aircraft. A carrier can spot for their team at no risk to themselves, as either their squadrons or fighters can spot enemy ships. The goal of this section is to make being spotted by a carrier less of a death sentence. 1a.) Spotting-Visibility Carriers having the potential to stack their own damage with spotting damage is very powerful. My proposal is to reduce spotting of enemy ships to that similar to spotting in squalls; the enemy ships will not be “lit up” for allies but the map location will update when a strike squadron flies within range of a ship’s detectability. 2.) Damage Balance Carrier-induced damage varies wildly, but in general, carrier attacks can come at any angle the carrier wishes, deal large amounts of damage, and damage incurred often can not be healed by much. Carrier also have a nasty habit of dealing a large amount of fires with HE ordinance, floods with torpedoes, and citadels with AP ordinance. Carriers also have a second nasty habit of being able to focus down an enemy opponent with these high damage attacks at a high frequency. Carrier have the ability to set up cross-fires at-will. As this is a inhernt trait of CVs and a core mechanic, so for this section, the goal is to instead focus on damage itself and the frequency of attack a carrier can carry out to focus a target. 2a.) Damage Balance-Damage This first part will be a relatively simple fix. First almost all damage being done by CVs is healable. Second is a across the board nerf of all ordinances dropped by CVs, so singular bomb, rocket, or torpedo hits cannot cripple ships. My idea is to treat carrier bomb and rocket damage to be like that of destroyer shells of the same nation and respective tier, the difference being that carrier ordinance has more penetration and can (with the notable exception of skip bombers), attack top-down, having to go through less armor in the first place. Torpedoes are more complex. Due to being carried by aircraft, and thus needing to be comparatively light, airborne torpedoes should be low damage compared to shipboard torpedoes, but still threatening. 2b.) Damage Balance-Frequency This will be more complicated, now while carriers do have to fly to the target, they can launch squadrons pretty much as soon as the last one is shot down or recalled. My solution will to this will come into play in multiple parts, but first of which is recharges. Like how Ise, Tone, and Kearsarge need to reload squadrons like a consumable, the same should apply to carriers. After all it takes time to refuel, rearm and sometimes repair aircraft, plus bringing new aircraft to the deck to replace losses. Additionally, we can give carriers more, less, or no duplicate squadrons (kind of like the old days) so if a say torpedo squadron one is on recharge, you can launch torpedo squadron two, but you won’t have a torpedo squadron in reserve. This gives a second avenue of balance as well, as some ships may have long re-arm times, but have reserved squadrons ready to react to threats. 3.) Counterplay A problem long plaguing CV games. AA feels almost useless at times, and flak can be dodged. Fighter planes, both catapult a carrier fighters seem to either be for show or as a “revenge” weapon to kill planes when it no longer matters. The goal of this section is to make counterplay more fun and effective. 3a.) Counterplay-AA AA is the main defense for every ship against aircraft. While to keep carriers fun there should be a upper limit to AA, it should be more effective than it is now, we should also implement ways to make it more engaging for players. Next, I would like to address the DFAA consumable. In the past this made squadrons’ reticles expand and have squadrons lose accuracy, this should be brought back, as it makes counterplay more effective. Finally, flak should be more player interactive. In stead of the current “Sector Reinforcement” we should have “Flak Zones”. Currently for all ships there is only two sections: Port and Starboard. For Destroyers they should have 4 zones, Cruisers have 6, Capital ships (BBs and CVs) have 8. Destroyers can only select one zone to shoot flak into, while cruisers and capital ships can pick 2 or 3, depending on ship type and nation. This flak should be much more effective, shooting in less of a dodge-able pattern and more of an airborne mine-field. effectively shutting down an avenue of attack. This will help mitigate the ability for CVs to set up cross-fires at-will . 3b.) Counterplay-Fighters Fighters are your interdiction defense, shooting down aircraft before they get a chance to make an attack run. For catapult fighters they should be intercepting aircraft withing a certain range of the launching ship. Interception range would depend on nation and ship; but If an enemy squadron is detected in interception range, it should immediately seek and attempt to destroy the enemy squadron, before it attacks. For carrier launched fighters it could be complicated, I propose an ability like that of pre-rework. Give the player a separate fighter squadron; for both support and strike carriers, the fighters get a box where the carrier player can “strafe” when they attack, attacking and hopefully destroying any aircraft in this box, opposing carriers will get a warning when taking damage from a strafing attack so they can dodge, and fighters, depending on the carrier and nation, get multiple possible passes like how strike squadrons work. I would hope this would make fighter and CV vs CV gameplay more dynamic. Patrol fighters should be traded for “Fighter Escorts” that act like catapult fighters, following the squadron and intercepting nearby fighters, and protecting the strike, but like fighter patrols it needs a “call-in” time for them to be most effective, they can also be used to draw some AA fire. 3c.) Counterplay-Consequences. Carriers do not risk their own health pool in fights, the next best thing is to make them have consequences for losing planes, effectively making planes their health. As we have massively increased potential of counterplay, we will be somewhat generous. Currently there is a “aircraft on deck” so when planes are lost in a squadron after a strike they get immediately replaced by aircraft on deck, and planes slowly regenerate, presumably by bringing aircraft from the hangar up. Let’s take this idea a step further, lets give carriers a limited hanger as well. While carriers may have duplicate squadrons, as established previously, they have to share deck space. My general rule is one extra ‘attacking flight’ per plane type on deck and 1-2 full squadrons in the hangar, on top of the full complement of each whole squadron at the start of a match. Give and take depending on the nation and tier. The rate of aircraft being brought from hangar to deck could vary for balance, but 2 aircraft being brought up every 40 seconds seems fair and is similar to current recharge rates, with some carriers maybe having “larger elevators” to bring up more aircraft at a time but taking longer to bring up, or “faster elevators” with faster recharge rates but with less planes on them. Should all aircraft run out of aircraft they can regenerate planes slowly if they are within a friendly cap circle, being forced to move up and risk themselves to stay in the fight. 3d.) Counterplay-ASW Every ship match up should have counterplay this includes submarines vs carriers. Carriers should carry ASW Squadrons. That’s all I’ve got to say on this really. 4.) Alternative Mechanics Okay so we did quite a bit of swinging of the nerf bat and made some big changes to counterplay, now time to make CVs still entertaining. 4a.) Alternative Mechanics – Strategy This was touched on in 2b and 3c, but make CVs more of a strategic playstyle. Make a CV player plan out when to launch what squadron where ahead of time due to re-arm times and multiple squadrons with duplicates squadrons and a limited aircraft pool. Also, you have to manually use fighters to cover allies, you may not be in a position to strike if allies are in trouble. 4b.) Alternative Mechanics-New Playstyles The slew of new mechanics would drastically change how carriers are played. All these new mechanics also give the opportunity to make each carrier more unique to play, but first let’s just recap a little on the new, proposed ways for carriers to be balanced with all these changes: 1. Aircraft Re-Arm Times 2. Multiple Squadrons to Manage 3. More Limited Deck and Hangar Space 4. Elevator Times (Bringing Aircraft from Hangar to Deck) Let’s do some examples on how these may make carrier be more balanced, fun, and unique. British carriers in game can seem pretty anemic comparted to contemporaries. But we can make British carriers have quick re-arm times to contemporaries, but it takes longer to bring aircraft from the hanger to the deck, and with very limited hangar and deck space. Making British carriers ironically a kind of “death-by-a-thousand-cuts ” carrier with high frequency attacks, but lower damage and losses mattering much more, despite the bulkier health of planes. These CVs would play most similarly to what we have now due to how frequently they can attack. Japanese carriers could have long re-arm times for their squadrons, but with lots of aircraft in their squadrons, on the deck, and in the hangar. This would make them more of a “endurance” carrier, being able to stay in the fight longer, even with high attrition, and doing okay individual damage and the lots of aircraft per squadron allowing multiple follow up attack and good damage over time, but requiring planning due to the slower reaction times. German carriers could be a “opportunist” carrier, doing good damage with their fast squadrons, but taking time to re-arm and losses mattering with low aircraft complements, making players use the speed of the squadrons to attack high-value low-health targets to work efficiently. American carriers can be a “jack-of-all-trades” being all-round average in squadron size, damage and speed. Having decent deck and hangar space, and a good reload time. Soviet carriers are still the “alpha strike” carriers. Large squadrons with decent damage and speed, but with low health and long re-arm times to balance them. Soviet carriers could have little reserve deck space but decent hangar space, as their planes have low health. However needlessly throwing away aircraft in wave tactics will come back to haunt the player mid-to-late-game.

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.

My last 15 matches have looked like this since I switched to playing my carriers. Is there something about carrier matches that makes this happen? This does not happen when I play destroyers. So why do I constantly land on the weaker team now as a carrier player? Yes, I am new, but I am a good spotter, yet my teammates just don't do much with the info, do not contest caps, and get deleted eventually.

USSR CV's are stupid broken So, if you've been in a game with a Super tester on the enemy team, you probably encountered Nahkimov or one of the USSR CV's. After having a few games with/against them, as a normal player, they're broken as [edited]. You might look at my stats and think I don't know jack, but that's ignoring the problem. These damn Cv's can remove a stupid amount of Hit Points on a lot of ships. Their rockets can remove cruisers, bombs can severely hurt destroyers, cruisers and battleships, and the torps are something else entirely. I'd rather leave this open to discussion but at least get WG to see that their idea for these russian carriers should be pushed back, retested, and nerfed to no tomorrow.

You already know. But in the event there was any remaining questions of what the low tier Pre-WWI ship experience in WoWS delivers… Super - Talks about protected cruisers in a thread on the forums yesterday. Enthusiastically brings out Varyag (1901) from the mothball fleet, and dives into low tier play! Finds two T4 CVs (1922/1924) awaiting after the 6 minute wait for enough people. Proceeds into battle. Proceeds to sink 3, and chase the hapless Red CVs while holding 2 caps Red CVs remain undeterred: Varyag does not have Tanaka and his Nambu pistol yet! ZERO AA! Vasily left his revolver in port due to a vodka hangover. Red CV Hermes, despite weathering 46 hits (20k in damage) lands 5 torps / 5 bombs / 4 rockets and sinks nimble Varyag (324k potential from all the dodges). Langley laughs in the distance, as he did not even need to partake. Super - questions why he thought playing low tier “welcome to World of CVs” was a good idea…Hits “Battle On” because what are the odds of another match like this one? 3 minutes wait reveals: another 4 CV match. Match dwindles down to 2 CVs on each side in a duel. Bravo WeeGee!!!

If wargaming wants to keep its Russian bias, the tech tree Russian ships need buffed ASAP! With the changes to the commander skill tree, and the game meta now being shifted to torp boats, A/J line BB sniping and FDRs, short range specialized ships that are can tank a lot of damage a straight up bad. The only viable ship from the Russian navy is well.... Slava, and maybe Slava, oh and Slava. Even Smolensk doesn't really make sense when everything is already outside of 19 kilometers. So WG, if you care so much about your Russian ships, then you probably should buff them, or else there will be no reason to play them... even on the RU servers.

***PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING*** Ok looke this poll isn't to ascertain if you liked the old CV style or not but am asking for its general functionality. I understand RTS CV is really OP but I want to gather information about what players prefer because I want to try to make a case to WG about this. RTS wasn't perfect but it was more functional and more playable than whatever we got. I fly planes IRL and its easier than this crap of a play style we now have. I understand its an arcade and not a Simulation anymore but I want the old game I love back. Where a random kitakami would show up in the wild and kill both your team and the enemy because holy crap it was crazy. I want a game that is more simulation-based. I'm open to suggestions on how we can improve CV battles as a whole not revert them to RTS. But I think something needs to be done to fix this nightmare of a game style CVs has become. Even if its the same you control a squadron but they all dive as one but its easier to lose planes. Not Battleships can launch an entire fighter squadron. What WG fails to realize is that this game has become more an action game with life like elements vs a decent game like it used to be. Spotter planes had weapons but were useless in a dogfight but could somewhat do something. Not have 4 planes in the air fighting Kates and Vals like they own the skies. I was in an Atlanta the other day and I got bombed like crazy I remember when cruisers were feared by CVs not another target. Also rockets really? I would have liked it better if we had manned fighters where we could chase and shoot down enemy planes. Remember please take the poll as a way of improvement not bias because one is better than the other

I was afraid the FDR would totally dominate Clan Battles. Is that CV not as good as the videos make it out to be? We ran into 2 FDR's, 2 Midway's, and 8 Richtoffens. 1 Midway and 1 Richtoffen caused us some trouble. The FDR seemed to just shed planes left and right. My Halland got hit 4 times. Once by a midway and 3 times by Richtoffen. .... I feel the Carriers give unfair vision and attempt to control the map. We found a combination that seems to give us an advantage. We won 5 out of 7... .... So i say send me the planes, it's just unfair I can't get Air Defense awards.... 37 FDR planes from my Halland.

With the Indian Celebration a couple of weekends ago and the request for Indian ships in WoWS, I was reminded that at one point the subcontinent was part of the Commonwealth (and still participates in the Commonwealth Games). I would like to propose a new Commonwealth Tech Tree that contains mostly real ships in all four of the classes from Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Characteristics: It is already established that the Commonwealth tech tree ship characteristics already include the creeping smoke generator, as well as both HE and AP for their main guns. For additional characteristics, I think it is appropriate that they be given an anti-submarine specialization once subs become part of the regular matchmaking. This can be approximated by giving all ships Depth Charges and an improved anti-sub Hydroacoustic Search Consumable. Aircraft carriers would have access to a squadron that could drop depth charges on top of Subs that they encounter. Cruisers: These will be Light Cruisers with better than average concealment and lower than average HP. Tier 1 - (AUS) Warrego (Grimsby-class) A sloop that provided escort duties in WWII. Provided some defence during the bombing of Darwin in 1942. Slow at 16.5 knots, it has three 4-inch guns so it will probably fit the RoF at Tier I, not like many people stay around at that level anyways... Tier 2 - (AUS) Pioneer (Pelorus-class) Built in 1897, transferred to Australia and commissioned in 1913, saw more actual combat than any other Australian ship of WWI, capturing several German merchants and helping blockade German East Africa. A bit slow, but should be serviceable at this tier. Tier 3 - (CAN) Aurora (Arethusa-class) Involved in the Battle of Dogger Bank in WWI, she was transferred to Canada in 1920. Became the victim of budget cuts and her equipment was cannibalized for other Canadian ships through the 1920s. Her specialty could be only 2 main guns and a lot of secondaries. However, she may be undergunned for the tier and may also be confused with the Russian Cruiser of the same name. Perhaps the Sydney and Adelaide should both be moved down one Tier with something else (paper ship?) to replace at Tier V. Alternately, choose: (CAN) Niobe (Diadem-class) Commissioned in 1898, was transferred to Canada in 1910 as one of the first ships of the new RCN. Reassigned as a depot ship partway through WWI, she was damaged in the Halifax Explosion of 1917. She has a lot of guns, similar to St Louis. Tier 4 - (AUS) Sydney (Chatham-class) Commissioned in 1913, she defeated SMS Emden at the Battle of Cocos. Had Depth Charge chutes, so would be good for Anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Tier 5 - (AUS) Adelaide (Birmingham-class) Similar to Sydney but with an extra main gun. Might be a too-highly tiered, but WG can probably tweak the design to fit at this level. Tier 6 - (NZL) Achilles (Leander-class) The legend. Similar to Perth. (AUS - Premium) Canberra (County-Class) This would be the one Commonwealth Heavy Cruiser option, with characteristics similar to Devonshire/London but with crawling smoke. Or maybe can fit it at Tier VII if the smoke makes it that survivable. Tier 7 - (PAK) Babur (Dido-class) Originally HMS-Diadem which covered convoys and raided german shipping routes in WWII, transferred to Pakistan in 1956 and participated in the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971. This class would have a similar performance profile to the Atlanta/Flint cruisers, so should fit at this tier. It was small, so should have the best concealment at it's tier and small HP pool to match. There might be an option to add the variant that had 5 turrets instead of 4. Tier 8 - (CAN) Ontario (Swiftsure-class) Commissioned for the RCN in 1945, she was too late to see service in the WWII Pacific theatre and had a relatively uneventful career. It has the same guns a Fiji with one less turret, but more secondaries. Since it wouldn't be a clone, there is leeway to make it's specs that would fit at this tier. If the original main battery RoF is too slow, have the ability to research and mount the Neptune guns to increase RoF. Tier 9 - (IND) Mysore (Crown Colony-class) Acquired by India in 1957, she served as flagship of the Western Fleet and commanded the missile attack on Karachi Harbour during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Granted this is an uptiered Fiji, but having access to both Slot 5 and 6 upgrades (possibility of improved concealment and RoF) should keep it competitive with other Tier IX CLs. If WG really wants to, maybe give it an option to upgrade the main battery and torpedos to Neptune guns/torps so it will be squishy offset by high DPM. Tier 10 - (???) Commonwealth (Minotaur-class?) May as well use the RN TX design here, but could make a complete new design (not like many of the TX ships were ever real anyways). But should still have both HE and AP, Crawling Smoke, and ASW options instead of radar. Destroyers: These will be similar to RN DDs, with crawling smoke, Depth Charges, and improved ASW Hydro. Tier 2 - (CAN) Patrician (M-class) WWI destroyer transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy in 1920. Tier 3 - (CAN) Vancouver (S-class) Acquired from RN in 1927, ended up used as a training ship. Tier 4 - (AUS) Stuart (Scott-class) A Flotilla Leader purchased from Britain in 1933, saw action throughout the Mediterranean and Pacific during WWII. Tier 5 - (CAN) Saguenay (River-class) Active in the Atlantic duing WWII, survived a torpedo hit and a ramming before eventually serving as a training ship until the end of the war. Tier 6 - (IND) Rajput (R-class) Originally HMS Rotherham and used in WWII, she was transferred to the Indian Navy in 1949 and saw active service in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Tier 7 - (AUS) Norman (N-class) Commissioned for the RAN in 1941, she was active in the Indian and Pacific oceans and was involved in freeing Burma, the Madagascar campaign, and Battle for Okinawa. Tier 8 - (CAN) Athabaskan (Tribal-class) This ship was built to replace the original Athabaskan that was sunk in the English Channel while operating with her sister ship HMCS Haida. Note that the Guns are 4x2 102mm, differing it both from the Haida and Cossack. Tier 9 - (PAK) Khaibar (Battle-class) Originally HMS Cadiz, she was sold to the Pakistani Navy in 1956 and was sunk during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war by Styx anti-shipping missiles from Indian Fast Attack Craft. Tier 10 - (AUS) Vendetta (Daring-class) Commissioned in 1958, she had a relatively quiet career except for providing naval gunfire support during the Vietnam War. Carriers: To differentiate these CVs from others in the game, they should have an ASW-aircraft option. Crawling smoke might be fun on this as well. Additionally, these could pioneer a Light Carrier concept: Being a CV with only 2 squadrons available instead of 3, with faster regeneration and captains can choose what squadron types they want on board (flexibility for the Captain, uncertainty for the opponent). Another option is to design them like regular CVs, but with smaller squadron sizes that regenerate faster. Or just have higher tier Aircraft available. Tier 4 - (CAN) Puncher (Ruler-class) Mostly a Bogue by any other name. A bit of a cheat, was run by the RN but crewed by Canadians. Tier 6 - (AUS) Vengeance (Colossus-class) WWII carrier that didn't see active service, she was loaned to the RAN from 1952 until 1955 then sold on to Brazil and renamed Mineas Gerais. Propeller aircraft included the Fairey Firefly and Hawker Sea Fury. Tier 8 - (CAN) Magnificent (Majestic-class) It was this ship or the HMCS Bonaventure, but this seems to fit better at its tier and the Bonnie only ever operated jet aircraft. Participated in transporting Peacekeeping forces to Port Said during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Aircraft are later generation Firefly and Sea Fury. Tier 10 - (IND) Viraat (Centaur-class) Originally the HMS-Hermes that participated in the Falklands Conflict. This is a real stretch as it operated early versions of jet aircraft and I don't know what type of aircraft complement WG would want to give it, but this could be the one carrier that gets jets (Sea Vixens and Buccaneers) and ASW prop-job Gannets. I'm not sure what else could fit at Tier X. Battleships: Not much choice here, as really there was ever only one class. Tier 5 - (NZL - Premium) New Zealand (Indefatigable-class) This Battlecruiser was paid for by the New Zealand government but spent most of it's time defending Britain During WWI. She participated in the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank, and Jutland. Much more interesting history than her sister ship, HMAS Australia. Some might say this should be Tier IV, but Tier V is the breakpoint for a lot of directives and matches what WG did with the Viribus Unitis.

When you go through carrier mechanics, you know, perhaps some QA testing and such, be sure to turn a keen eye (or two) on the behavior of various bomb drops. You can pull a maneuver with your aircraft more than a second ahead of release - and yet the bombs go flying off to a completely different direction. I'm pretty sure you guys are aware of this behavior. Aside from AA too thick to see through and those damnable pauses when an AA envelope is opened up the first time, I'd say the gravity-defying bombs are the most irritating aspect of playing carriers. If a plane pulls a hard turn, then lines up and drops while not in a turn, those bombs should not be carrying around unspent inertia which causes them to leap out from under the planw on the previous path of the hard turn. Nope. Now if the plane is IN a turn and releases bombs, sure, I'd expect those bombs to go off course - some - but not a country mile. Know what I mean? Then too... there are carrier planes you can fly in a completely straight path, do nothing to alter speed or course, just release ordnance and what the?! Where are they going!? Thanks for taking a closer look at bomb drop mechanics.

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

Ok, I'm brand spanking new to CVs with just two: Weser and Ark Royal. I've been looking at recommended captain specs on the WOWS wiki and have noticed that superintendent doesn't appear to be a recommended skill. Is that true for all CVs?