Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cv'.



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
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 192 results

  1. TheHunter2_EAD

    HMS Ark Royal premium ship

    Every CV player want Ark Royal even me.(except for CV hater). The problem is what tier: VI or VIII. And since azur-lane part 2 is coming out let's have the Capt. & Camo as well. If going be tier VI the aircraft going be Attacker: Fulmar, Torpedo Bombers: Swordfish, & Carpet Bombers: Skua. If going be a tier VIII I don't know they make up something. I know everyone has seen this video let's have a since of humor and watch it again.
  2. TheHunter2_EAD

    Junyo if is possible?

    Awhile back a few months I finish model IJN cv name Junyo. It was Kashiwara Maru( an ocean line) then converted into a Shokaku class. The Bridge same one on Taiho & Hakuryu. The next part I'm reading off the Instruction: It first saw Action in MI Operation in June 1942 in the attacks in Dutch Harbor on the 3rd & 5th, early October saw action in Solomon's, Guadalcanal Attacks, the battle of the South Sea, & 3rd battle of the Solomon's ( 9th of Nov.). It was damage near Okinoshima Island on Nov. 5th 1944 by US submarine then towed back to Kure by IJN cruiser Tone. The last battle it became Flagship of the 2nd IJN air fleet in the Battle off Mariana between 19th & 20th of June after that it receive 2 direct hits at funnel then torpedoed while in transportation to Brunei on 9th of Dec. sent to be repaired at Sasebo for the last time. The repairs started in March of 1945 then suspended in April of 1945 and then scrapped in 1947. Specifications for the Junyo: Trail Displacement: 27,555 tons Waterline length: 215.3 m Maximum breadth: 26.70 m Maximum speed: 25.5 knots Number of planes carried: 48 regular & 5 auxiliary Flight Deck: 210.3 m in length & 27.3 in width Date of Completion: May 3rd 1942 at Mitsubishi Nagasaki Dockyard Modernization: 8/1944 12 x 1 - 25/60 96-shiki & 6 x 28 - 120 AA rockets My option a well rounded tier 8 CV. Probably same tier aircraft as Enterprise. It maybe good can date for a premium ship. Let's see WG going to do?
  3. This is my actual configuration of the capitan for the RYUJO, this is my CV IJN capitan I Have the Shokaku unlocked , but first i going to practice a lot Please advise,
  4. WG, It has been some time now since you have "buffed" Graf Zeppelin and it still does not feel like a fun ship. Statistically it is not a good ship. It is still the worse premium CV with a NA winrate around 49% and a 48% winrate on EU. It briefly dipped into the 48% range on NA also. Since the 8.5 AA buff (which was a good thing btw) the Graf Zeppelin has become the three legged dog of the T8 premium CV group. The AP bombs are still useless and the speed nerf boost nerf to this ship coupled with the 8.5 AA buff has made things much worse. Further AA buffs in 8.6 and 8.7 don't look good for this ship at all. I would not recommend this CV to anyone right now. What specifically are you doing to bring this CV inline with the other premium CVs as far as fun and effectiveness? The AP bomber 5 degree normalization made things even worse than before and that is saying a lot. You cannot even plan to use them in a fight because they are that unreliable. Frequent misses, over-pens and ricochets make these some of the worse weapons I have ever seen in this game. This ship has the worse embarked carrier air wing of any T8 CV--- premium or silver. The torpedo bombers continue to be the only viable weapons but the hit points on those planes is not enough to overcome the speed boost nerf. If this is the end of buffs or tweaks for this ship please allow those of us who remain disappointed to get some kind of refund. Even if it is just doubloons I would like to salvage something from this. Thanks. @Sub_Octavian @Femennenly
  5. With the rework to CV's and AA I find my aircraft recovery time being more and more important. (yes yes I get resource management) My question is this - Is it even worth uprading. I'm looking at the stats- Attack = +86 hp (4.6%) increase /// Speed +9 (4.4%) increase. However.... Restoration is +7 (10.44%) loss Bombers = +97 hp (4.6%) /// Speed +4 (2%) But again... Restoration is +8 (13.1%) loss Torps are better no question but with the other two... less than 100hp is 1/2 a second under the new AA and the speed is negligable but 7 and 8 more seconds per plane over the course of an entire match? Thats a lot of lost time especially with AA being brutally punishing of even minor mistakes. Am I missing something here becasue to me these "upgrades" seem like alot more like downgrades to me. Seriously asking, I really feel like I must be missing something or interpreting something wrong.
  6. Play a CV and suck in it. Sorry I'm severely out of practice after giving up on hoping the enemy Graf Zepplin, Enterprise, Saipan, or even the Kaga messes up. Sorry I can't keep up with Saipan planes, or the volume of the Kaga reserves. Sorry I couldn't get the perfect strafe on those GZ bombers while I was locked up in a fighter duel. Sorry the Enterprise has ALL OF THE PLANES. Sorry the IJN CV cross dropped you before I could react after you went straight to the cap knowing there was a CV on the enemy team. Not sorry for completely wrecking the Lexington. Sorry I cant scout the one cap, drop the enemy BB pushing you, and protect the BB on the other side of the map all at the same time. Sorry I only have so much ammo and need to recycle my planes. Sorry I can't babysit you exclusively at the expense of the team. Sorry the other flank collapsed and it's entirely my fault. Sorry I'm bottom tier and there are 12 Worcesters on the enemy team. Sorry you guys went and threw your ships away pushing when you were outnumbered. Sorry none of you BBs know how to stay near an AA cruiser. I'm glad this rework is happening despite preferring the old RTS feel. Now I can actually play a class that interests me without having to do literally everyone's job and hold your hand the entire time I carry the team. And when I do where's my compliment huh? RIP CVs as we know them, and good riddance.
  7. Ive seen two threads about a directive of shooting down planes and the lack of CV in the queue... so how about no more feeding? I mean the game are rewarding them for doing literally nothing so they can shoot down spotter planes if they want Its our time, no more CVs
  8. I've been dreading this directive since I looked at it closely last week. It asks for me to earn 20,000 Free XP in carriers - ouch! I have one CV, Saipan, from a crate. I've attempted to master her in Co-op and have been fairly poor in the results with an 87% WR in 124 battles. I've been a true and bona-fide rotten potato with her in Randoms posting a 33% WR in 48 battles. Now I have to tackle this directive mission. Today I had battles 49 and 50 in Randoms (both wins!) bringing my WR now to 36%. More importantly, my rotten potato self scored a Kraken and Confederate. The stars had to align to get me in a T8 battle at top tier. I wonder if I now have some skill and can drop the "rotten" from potato or am I riding luck and my team's skirt tails? Regardless I am patting self on back for this one - I don't do Savage Battles so I am having to rely on the outlier missions for the directive accomplishment. Flying flags and cammo has netted me 4763 Free XP in these two battles. There is hope I can complete the mission before the event ends...
  9. KAAOS_Frosty

    CV Stat's

    I know someone out there can find this. WG claimed rework was to encourage more player to play CV's. Can someone find the stats on battles for CV's per week prior 8.0 and get a run down on CV player base from that to now with each patch. I think that would be something to see how far off the CV player base has dropped off in the 5 or 6 months. Frosty
  10. Been running the Kidd recently to be support for my friend who's learning the ropes on Enterprise. The DFAA is crazy good on that thing. I've wiped full Lexington squads from the air in seconds. Never really been able to do well with it before, but now I seem to be finding a niche for it. For anyone doubting it's AA effectiveness, don't worry, she's still an annoying little boat to deal with.
  11. Destroyers versus Carrier Aircraft need help. This proposal in aimed to do exactly that: save the Destroyer from Carriers, but within REASON. Goal of the proposed change: Give all Destroyers a dedicated defensive "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable that remains active for X minutes and respawns destroyed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" during that time frame. This will enable Destroyers to capture a zone at game start and fully protect themselves from enemy Aircraft Carriers for a limited amount of time. Reason for the proposed change: Destroyers are the ships that normally capture zones and they need special protection to at least enable them to capture ONE zone, especially when their fleet does not protect them from enemy Aircraft. If the Destroyers of a fleet fail to capture a zone at the start of the match due to enemy Aircraft, then that usually also decides the outcome of the match. That is very bad for game play. The proposed Consumable should allow every Destroyer to capture at least one zone even when facing an enemy Aircraft Carrier. This is to be a new and a unique "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable, for Destroyers ONLY, that works very different from the "Fighter Squadron" Consumable that currently exists in the game. The Characteristics of the proposed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable change: It is a consumable that is only available to all Destroyers at all Tiers that face a Carrier and the Consumable is only available to a Destroyer when they are in a match with enemy Carriers (if not then it is hidden). It can only be used once per match for X amount of minutes. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of two parts: one on-map, one off-map. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of a single Fighter Patrol Squadron, consisting of X Fighter Aircraft, that flies at low altitude above the Destroyer in a circle pattern (like the existing "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does). The on-map part "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" can be spotted, damaged and destroyed by enemy Aircraft and enemy AA/Flak because they fly at low altitude. The off-map (very high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that will replace the on-map (low altitude) Fighter Patrol Squadron if it is destroyed. This replacing takes place X seconds after the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron is destroyed. The off-map (high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that fly at very high altitude above a Destroyer and thus above the range of enemy Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Flak/Fighters. They are not visually represented on the map and mini map, they cannot spot and they cannot be attacked nor can they attack. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable has a radius that is 25% LARGER that than of the current best Fighter Squadron in the game. When enemy Aircraft enter the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" circle, the on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" will move in to attack them, like the current "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does. If the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable is destroyed it will be replaced by a full Hit Point Fighter Patrol Squadron that travels down from very high altitude to low altitude within X seconds after the last on-map Fighter Patrol aircraft was destroyed. The on-map and off-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable cannot spot. That simulates that there is no direct communication between the Destroyer and the Fighter Patrol Squadrons, like usually was the case in real life in WW2. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable can spot only for itself, but cannot share data on what it spots with the Destroyer and the fleet. It is advisable to combine this "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" with the "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" that is described in another topic.
  12. Goal of the proposed change: Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations. Reason for the proposed change: Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Proposed change: Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels. Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS). The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. Here are two examples of how this works out: For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP. A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56. It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in another topic.
  13. TheHunter2_EAD

    Akagi if is possible?

    I know Akagi is another IJN CV that everyone after the Kaga came out. (Some of us are foaming at mouth including me). If is possible to have it as a tier VI? With load out for the battle of Midway? That would be A6M2, D3A1, & B5N2. http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_cv_akagi.htm Some people may not like this idea. But here it goes: Next time WG does another Azur Lane premium bundle can we have this? If any can find other video's about Akagi combat history. Go ahead and post it.
  14. Seluecus

    Better CV XP Gain

    I have noticed, rather a while back, that CV's don't get Spotting, Spotted Dmg/Kill, or Assisted Dmg/Kill experience gain. How exactly am i suppose to NOT hate CV's if i get horrible experience gain for all the hardwork i do. Planes were just as much about Scouting as they were attacking. I just finished a match where i had done 10k damage, sunk 1 ship but was SPOTTING enemy ships for about 90% of the time, resulting in my team getting better shots out, etc...! Why am i not getting properly compenstated (As a CV Capt.) for HELPING my team win a game.... why does it ONLY have to be about Damage and Kills? How else am i suppose to get decent experience gain from a CV. It's not like i'm Panzerknacker, or Notser, or Flamu. I don't do 100k damage (per game) in a CV, and get multiple Davy Jones. I made 560 base experience for that match, because i apparently did not do enough damage, or sink enough ships.... Come on Wargaming. I know y'all are working your asses off, but carriers have been in this game for HOW LONG???!!!! and y'all don't have a proper xp gain system for utilization of a CV's full capabilities??? I can understand the potential ridiculousness of having a passive experience system gain. BUT if it's passive gain still is based off the fact that a CV Capt. STILL has to do damage / sink / shoot down planes / etc... then it would be rather hard to exploit. I'm not a CV Capt. I never will be a good one either, but that doesn't mean that I do not want to enjoy playing them. But if i get 500 base experience for using the full capability of my CV's systems and hardware, i should get more than 500 base experience.
  15. In my last post on this subject (CV Play) the CV Rework was just coming out, and I said I'd keep an open mind, and try it out for awhile, then see how it went. Well, here's my take pm it, at this point (6 Apr 19): The current Update to Carrier Play has caused quite a few players I know personally, as well as others I chat with during matches to simply refuse further CV Play, and many former CV players have even sold-off their carriers in disgust. I have tried to keep an open mind, hoping further "fixes" will make CV Play viable and enjoyable, but so far, have found it to be neither, and in fact, an extremely annoying WASTE of my precious gaming time, particularly when my Tier VIII CV is pitted vs. Tier IX and X ships—even a single, lone CL wipes out my planes before they can drop a single bomb. The CV aircraft flight model continues to be "jerky" (due to the time compression needed) and overall, CV Play has become increasingly "unrealistic" with each new "fix", causing some players resort to unrealistic "work-arounds" to "game the system" --departing even further from logic and historical practice so as to succeed in the faulty CV Play system. Although with practice, I will no doubt develop the proper technique for accurate aerial attacks-- while losing most or all of my attacking squadron by the end of my 2nd pass-- in its current state, I doubt I will ever find CV Play "enjoyable," much less "rewarding" and thus, will avoid it, keeping a token CV for "Spotting" tasks and little else. I have so far resisted selling-off my last CV in disgust, and have not enjoyed even a single mission yet. HOWEVER— aside from a much-needed toning down the fantastic hyper-lethality of AA in general, with some minor "fixes" using existing game mechanics, some of the more frustrating aspects of Carrier Play for both carrier and surface combatant players might be alleviated, as follows: SUGGESTION #1: British Dive Bombers should be allowed to carry, at minimum, 500-lb/230 kg bombs, and ideally, 1,000-lb/500 kg and heavier bombs, just as they did in real life. No aviation force would ever seek to attack armored warships with piddly little 250-lb General Purpose bombs, though they may have been adequate vs. small craft (E-boats, F-lighters, armed trawlers) and coastal freighters-- 500 lb bombs were the rule vs. smaller combatants, such as frigates and destroyers, and were the minimum vs. armored warships. E.g., in a 1944 attack, Fairey Barracudas attacked the battleship Tirpitz with with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, scoring 14 direct hits, which even so, only put the Tirpitz out of action for 8 weeks. Had they used mere 250-lb bombs to which the game currently limits them, there likely would've been no significant damage whatsoever. [Note that of 42 attacking Barracudas, only ONE was lost to enemy AA-- a far cry from the uber-hyper-collossal lethality of AA as it currently exists, and I'm primarily a surface ship operator, and yet I'm embarrassed by just how unbelievably lethal even my little Leander's AA is-- enemy planes just melt away and do nothing, and I've removed all my AA builds, upgrades, and skills-- they're no longer needed, and I pretty much ignore attacking planes.] SUGGESTION #2: Have the ENTIRE attack aircraft squadron, whether Torpedo, Dive Bomber, or Rocket Aircraft launch its ordnance near-simultaneously with the "Squadron Leader" (the central aircraft on the screen the carrier player "flies"). When the player hits his mouse key to "launch ordnance", remaining aircraft of the flight also launch their ordnance, but with a delay of, say, 0.1 seconds to 5 seconds. This will prevent unrealistic "robotic perfection" in the resulting bomb or torpedo pattern that surface ship players used to complain about. In the same manner, the Squadron Leader's (center aircraft) places its strike at the exact center of the "crosshairs" (or torpedo arc), subject to normal "dispersion", and remaining aircraft of the squadron launch their ordnance subject to dispersion from that point, as well possibly a short time delay, just as a volley of warship shells deviates within its "Maximum Dispersion" ellipse already. This is already included in the game mechanics, I believe, but it should be able to be "improved" via certain "Captain Skills" and/or via ship "Upgrades" (see further below). E.g., for dive bombers, bombs other attacking aircraft would have a similar "dispersion" within the "ellipse" that appears on the aiming diagram the player uses, and torpedoes deviate a few mils left or right (randomly) from the "center" of their assigned point in torpedo squadron formation. I.e., torpedoes would also have a "dispersion" of a few mils, left or right, and in time of drop, for each torpedo the squadron successfully drops. Thus, mass torpedo drops will have an appearance similar to a volley of shells, with each individual torpedo deviating slightly, at random, within the Maximum Dispersion parameters for the ship/squadron, just as in real life, and as surface ship shells do already. This would eliminate the unrealistic (and silly) game mechanism that allows only 1 or 2 bombs/torpedoes to "launch" from an entire flight of 4 to 8 aircraft, while the remaining aircraft of the squadron do nothing but fly along as targets, waiting their turn on the next target pass (which is utterly unrealistic, and NEVER done in combat). But it would also prevent the target ship from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of "un-dodgeable" torpedoes or bombs, as many will certainly miss, unless the attacking player is very lucky (as per warship volleys now). So— having the entire squadron attack at once, but with a slightly varying "time of drop" by say, 0.1 to 5 seconds after the "Leader" aircraft (reduced by certain "Crew Skills", as well instituting a "Maximum Dispersion" variance for torpedoes, etc.), targeted ships won't be overwhelmed by a concentrated "perfect" swarm of torpedoes, especially as they "shoot holes" into the attacking formation, and carrier aircraft will be far less exposed to the (already excessively lethal) ship AA defenses, but make attacks like their historical counterparts did, and with similar results.As a starting point, I suggest that the "mil dispersion" for Torpedo Aircraft be placed at +/-10 mils dispersion for early (Tier IV) carrier planes, and reduced slightly for each carrier tier above that, i.e., +/-8 mils @ Tier VI, 7 mils @ Tier VIII, and +/-6 mils @ Tier X, to reflect improved aiming equipment, torpedoes, aircraft, and training of torpedo pilots as the war progressed. Note that this mil dispersion is from each individual plane's position in the FORMATION, not from the Squadron Leader's aim point, as torpedo planes attacked in an on-line formation, spaced at intervals of 50 to 100 meters or more, ensuring a wide "spread" to increase the possibility of a hit for the squadron as a whole. Note that this also assured that it was virtually impossible for every torpedo, or even most of the torpedoes in the squadron's "volley" to hit the target, as many would automatically miss, depending on the target ship's relative course and subsequent reaction. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian) is a measure of angle, typically used in ballistics, i.e., a minute fraction of a circle. Easy to look up, if you're unfamiliar.]kills such as "Basic Firing Training" and "Advanced Firing Training" could be modified to give air squadrons a tighter Maximum Dispersion pattern, by, say, 2 mils each, as well as a "tighter" ordnance drop time relative to the Squadron Leader, say, by 1 second each. Thus a Tier VIII torpedo squadron with both Basic and Advanced firing training would improve its Maximum Dispersion to +/-6 mils, left or right, and drop their torpedoes within 0.0 to 3 seconds of the Squadron Leader's torpedo. For Dive Bombers, the Maximum Dispersion ellipse (that already exists) could be reduced in a similar manner, by say 5 mils "tighter" for both Basic and Advanced Firing Training, each. Thus, a dive bomber squadron with both skills would have its Maximum Dispersion ellipse reduced by 10 mils width and length. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian") is a measure of angle used in ballistics , surveying, etc. I.e., a tiny fractional "slice", if you will, of a circle. Easy to look up if you're unfamiliar.] "Sight Stabilization" Skill would remain as-is; "Aiming Systems Modification-1" might be extended to include reduced aircraft ordnance Maximum Dispersion as well. Later-war (Tier VIII and X) aircraft should be able to attack from higher up, and at much faster airspeeds, as improved torpedoes obviated the need for very low, very slow torpedo drops to prevent destruction of the torpedo. SUGGESTION #3: Aircraft Spotting of Surface Ships— THE PROBLEM: Aircraft are able to spot an enemy ship, so that other ships can fire upon it too easily and in real time, and yet, the range for aircraft spotting of an enemy ship is so limited that a flight of planes often loses sight of its target between passes. Currently, aircraft not only reveal far too much information to allied players, enabling any enemy ship they spot to be fired upon by all; they are also often taken under intense AA fire without even being able to spot the enemy ship that is firing upon them. DISCUSSION: Carrier aircraft of the period were totally unable to provide more than an enemy ship type and rough location and course to distant stations, and typically were, at most, in radio contact only with their own ship's Combat Information Center, assuming it was even in radio range, and long-range radios of the day were often Morse Code key sets, not voice comms, and the enemy ship type and course reported was typically vague at best, and more than not, inaccurate. So as to go undetected, attack aircraft typically flew on "radio listening silence" until commencing their attack, could not communicate with other ships in real time, and went silent again for their return to their carrier, so as to not reveal its location. SOLUTION: To reflect this and improve Aircraft Spotting of Ships, non-spotter aircraft should be able to see enemy surface ships well before they enter the enemy's AA zone— but unable to pass anything more than that ship's type and location for at least 6-12 seconds afterward. Thus, non-spotter, attack aircraft and fighters should UNABLE to spot targets spot enemy ships in real time as if they were a surface ship—they could only reveal an enemy ship's basic type (not name), and only on the Mini Map. Sighting of surface ships by non-spotter aircraft should provide a player's allies ONLY a "shaded red/dashed red" outline of an enemy ship on the Mini Map ONLY, in exactly the same way an enemy ship obscured by bad weather, or spotted by others beyond one's ship's sighting range is currently shown on the Mini Map. Such "spotting" should be revealed to friendly players only after a slight delay— of say, 6 to 10 seconds, to reflect the time required for an aircraft's "home" ship to pass enemy location data to other friendly ships. Spotting Aircraft Use and aspects would continue unchanged. PROBLEM: Overly Lethal AA's Severe Impact on Game Balance: AA is so lethal now that I pretty much ignore incoming planes unless they're from a Tier X CV. The rest just "evaporate" and even if they hit me, they do about as much damage as an 8-inch shell strike, and torp hits virtually never flood. When operating a CV, I suffer from having my planes wiped out on approach to higher-tier and even sometimes to lower-tier ships. My planes are often "surprised" by hidden enemy ships and downed before they can escapey, even with Engine Boost and calling for Fighters to help absorb attacks. Such hyper-lethal AA guarantees that I can never even make it into the upper half of scorers on my team, and am almost always at or close to the bottom. SOLUTION A: Have dual-purpose guns (e.g., Atlanta's 5" guns; the 105mm dual-purpose guns of Prinz Eugen or Tirpitz; 100mm guns of Akizuki…) either fire upon surface targets, or vs. aerial targets, BUT NOT BOTH at the same time. The player must choose, or let the ship's AI decide— When under aerial attack, it fires all guns vs. attacking aircraft, or at least all guns on the "Priority AA" Side, unless the player chooses otherwise, by clicking on a surface target. Medium and Short-range AA guns, of course, would continue to defend the ship, as usual. SOLUTION B: Halve the Hit Probability of all ships— Really now, Continuous Damage Ph's of 88% and 95% (Tier VIII) and 100% (Tier X) are ridiculous for that era, and even for today. Leave Continuous Damage and Burst Radius Damage as is, but entire squadrons vanishing as they approach a lone Leander CL is just awful. Even if this is done, I predict that another "halving" will be needed in the future to bring CV Play into balance with surface ships. This will work, and be balanced as well, if the changes above are implemented I think. SOLUTION C: Stop listening to whiny surface ship players that complain they "…can never see an enemy CV, and therefore can't fight vs. such an "unseen enemy"— That's the just way it was, and is. A ship fights vs. an enemy CV's AIRCRAFT, as the enemy CV is hundreds of kilometers away, not lurking on a tiny map, trying to avoid surface detection and destruction by nearby enemy surface ships, as in the game. In all history, only three (3!) CVs are recorded as lost to enemy surface gunfire. If anything, CV players should be whining about the tiny maps. But don't think because I say this that I'm a CV fan boy, or even "enthusiast"— as, so far, I hate CV Play, and plan to run a CV only as a last resort for a battle task, as it's become a waste of my precious gaming time, unless things improve. Obviously, all this needs to be play-tested, but such changes, using existing game mechanics, could be easily incorporated to make Carrier Play more rewarding and enjoyable, while at the same time allow players to use Naval History (somewhat) as a guide for their tactics. OK-- Thoughts, anyone? Trolls need not reply-- we already know what you (don't) think...
  16. Link to photo "We are aware. As 0.8.5 changes have brought much needed and requested AA DPS consistency, it seems like in many cases the plane losses became slightly excessive, and overall CV efficiency was nerfed too much. While we do like the change, we still need to keep CV efficiency reasonable. Over the weekend and early next week we intend to observe the situation very closely, determine the amount of needed changes to plane HP, and implement a hotfix. Unfortunately, only live server data will help us to polish the change, preserving its core concept – more rewarding and meaningful anti-air defense. Stay tuned for more news, and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience." That is the official response from the EU forum regarding the current SITREP of the CV change. I'm not being fastidious, but if WG insists on only using "live server data" to make their decisions on anything to do with Warships game (which is probable). Then how about the CV players fudge their CV stats during "the weekend and early next week", to feed data to their "Game Balance designer" dude. Maybe the pendulum will swing to the other extreme if this temporary exercise is actually done by all CV players (or most). At best, we will at least put to bed that "live server data" is only what is actually used to determine the changes of any ships (past & present & future) by WG theory. So what say you CV players?
  17. THis is the Reward i get for protecting MY team NO this will not DO
  18. Hi This is my CV capt for the US line please advise about skills
  19. TheHunter2_EAD

    Can We have Zuikaku?

    Can the Zuikaku as a tier VIII premium CV with a different load out? Why I'm ask because "Kaku" is a crane and have one without the other means incomplete cane set. If it come to the game give it a cane camouflage . So we have both twin canes. http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_cv_shokaku.htm
  20. My tactics are mostly developed for Ryujo. CVs have changed yet they remain the same. I still see the same mistakes CV players make now as they did before the update. At this point, my salt to this style of gameplay is lessened enough for me to play "normally". CVs were hated before, CVs are still hated now, and CVs will stay hated afterwards. What makes CVs seem more OP now than they were before? Who knows. The CV skillset was high before but it is much higher now. Communication Do your best to communicate but make sure to focus on the task in front of you Scout Scout either your side or the opposite side Find the weakest side you can find Your eyes are the team's eyes Do your best to not sacrifice your planes Move Set your ship's way points according to what your scouts find and where your team goes or does not go Take it slow and follow the safest side As the side becomes safer, raise your speed when possible One of the safest area's is the enemy spawn if you can get there without being seen Closer you are the faster your attack runs can be Recover Sometimes you are better of waiting than going onto another attack run so let your squads recover for as long as you can from zero Defending Do your best to defend your fleet but focus on your attack run When using the fighter consumable, make sure to drop it after the enemy attack run and a circle and a half in front of your allied ship, this way by the time your fighters can defend your allied ship will be in the circle and ready to counter another enemy attack run Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, go to your minimap and set your way point into a different direction so that you can avoid an hit but focus on your objective before taking control of the ship Should you be attacked by the enemy CV, change squads as many times as you can and use the fighter consumable in front of your ship, this will decimate the enemy(s) attack run (total of four fighter squads in the air is possible in short distance) Attack Find and attack the weakest and solo ships you can, do not attack heavy AA groups of ships Capping Be willing to cap Fight There is no use running from something you can't run from, whether that is enemy speed or gun range You have secondary guns, make use of them Most players won't expect a aircraft carrier to fight back Other I get my good days and my bad days Be fast, find the enemy, take a chance, be willing to cap, be willing to fight, miracles can happen Ryujo Skills & Upgrades
  21. ecparke

    I love CVs

    Coming from a new player, who never played the RTS style, I love playing CVs. I totally understand how people complain about them, how they are overpowered, etc. I have to disagree. The main power of the CV is information. You fly out, and you can scout the enemy team to see which cap points they are rushing, and that allows your team to react accordingly. If you find a ship sailing out all by its lonesome, punish it. Everyone says WOWS is a team game and everyone seems to know that except for rare occasions, being off by yourself gets you sunk. I LOVE when I find a little DD off by himself, the smoke on cooldown, and I get 3-4 (Enterprise baby!) passes to make his life miserable. You want to counter a CV? Stick together. Flying through walls of flack, even if I have ditched my first 1-2 attacks, is a nightmare. Even in my Midway, I avoid cruisers unless they are off by themselves. Worst thing in the world is 2-3 BBs sticking together because I have to keep real far away from them, I have to ditch 1-2 torp attacks before I even get there, and then I have to fly through a wall of flack to drop my torps, before flying all the way back out again. You want to make my game easy? Split up. Your team basically turns into a buffet. Cheers XD UPDATE: to answer questions below; not a troll, yes a new player, no not cancerous (that I know of), 1 of 3 CV players in my clan (and they give me crapfor it).
  22. StevebDancer

    CV Rework needed.

    I will break this down in to B# for bugs, P# for problems, S# for possible solutions.. These are all for CVs, here we go. -B1 CVs and planes do not reduce viability in cyclones. they stay the same.. (you know how to fix this). -B2 CVs can not tell when a ship hits AA consumable.. we just loose our planes.. -S1 a green area shows up for the ships AA range when they hit their AA consumable. -P1 CVs are dropping fighters everywhere, let me explain I had a CV drop a fighter squadron inside my CV's detection but out side my AA just to spot me, they do that for BBs too, and DDs.. 2nd they drop fighters right in front of my squadron or just out side my fighter squadron to kill my fighters or planes I am flying. This is very annoying.. -S1 when a CV player fly's with in 2-3km of a ally ship and is pointed at the ally. they press fighter squadron key and those fighters act like a catapult fighter for that ship. no dropping out side of that. so they can only be dropped on ally ships. If key is pressed outside of that a error message in chat shows up "must be with in 3 km and pointing at ally to use fighter squadron" -S2 fighter squadron can not spot ships.. -P2 CV being up tiered.. as you can tell by your data those CV run out of planes quick and don't do much damage at all. this must be balanced out some how.. -P3 What is the % of ships that are AA spec'ed. this means you do not have good skills that are used instead of AA skills.. please replace give good skills at tier 3 and 4. -P4 What is the purpose of giving a CV better maneuverability for hall upgrade, it is useless. give it something it can use. -S1 when hall is upgraded make CVs detection drop a bit instead of rudder shift. -S2 give CVs 1 extra plane for each type of squadron instead of rudder shift. -S3 slightly faster replenish of planes of each type of squadron, instead of rudder shift. -B3 Sling shot attacks that by pass most of the damage of ships AA.. where they time when to drop 1 set of bomb then use the invalienability to get close to a ship with good AA to drop on them with out loosing planes. -S1 increase time before ship can go back into a attack run after dropping ordinance would fix this.. -S2 take away the Invalienabiiity after the drop.. -P5 Flack clouds do tons of damage to all planes.. and makes complete walls of flack Which you can't avoid.. Flack clouds either land in front or on your planes.. -S1 all flack clouds explode randomly with in their range.. NOT JUST IN FRONT. -S2 shrink flack clouds so they are smaller then they could be easier to dodge and randomly in range of shell.
  23. Howdy sailors! so I finally unlocked and purchased the midway but I have a question involving the tier X Dive and Torpedo bombers. why are the tier X planes the BTD destroyer when they were canceled after WW2 and later replaced by the AD-1 Skyraiders in the Korean war? (technically 30 BTD's were made but only 5 did any combat) BTD data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_BTD_Destroyer AD1- data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider Did someone at WG make a mistake? does anyone by chance know why they went with this route? if anyone knows please let me know anyways, until next time I'll C'ya on the Seas!
  24. @Sub_Octavian is there a chance we just call it good and “un-buff” the AP bombs? We appreciate the effort to compensate Graf after the speed changes but it’s not working out. I don’t know if a buff has ever been asked to be reverted but the new bomb mechanics seem worse than they were before. The bombs bounce, overpen or completely miss the target most of the time. Coupled with the speed boost “standardization” this CV feels worse in 8.4 overall. Thanks.
  25. This is just a follow up to some previous charts pulled from an API site that were posted on the matter a while ago. The site from where these charts were pulled : https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/ru/total DISCLAIMERS: Take this with a grain of salt, while these are API stats, and thus pulled directly from WG, there may be some mistakes on behalf of the site since it's offline from time to time. In addition, there is no mention of which game mode players play, just totals and averages. Some of the player spikes can be explained because of events/Clan Battles/Ranked This is not meant to be a "the sky is falling" type of thread; will just post the graphs and give my own subjective opinion on the matter. With that out of the way, let's move on to the graphs. I have added a few pre rework months as well for comparison. Green is for NA, Red for RU, Blue for EU. In addition have included peak and average players for the past 30 days. NA: EU: RU: A few final observations: Personally it doesn't look too bad. But then you have to consider things like player retention, average playtime sessions, different game modes etc. What could be a double edged sword is how player numbers have remained roughly the same. While it's good that people are still willing to play and spend time in the game, by that point we should be seeing a rise in player numbers. Of course you could argue that in an uncertain environment it's only logical for such a thing to happen and I can't really disagree. Finally, the most important statistic and gauge of the rework is missing, and I don't think we will ever see it. And that's profits and loses from the sale of premium content compared to pre-rework. Still, I feel these charts are at least something worth taking a look at. Thanks for the read.
×