Search the Community

This needs to be made equal because as it stands right now its clear favoritism for those spending cash. Ships like the Kaga can launch their aerial torpedoes in groups of 4, while even the top-tier Japanese carriers can only launch in sets of two. Is this deliberate? I don't want to hear anything about a tradeoff because with the effectiveness of AA and maneuverability of ships getting more torpedoes down in a single strike is FAR more effective than attempting several strikes. In the Hakuryu I'm lucky if i can even get two torpedo strikes off on a battleship before all my planes are brought down. Not to mention the swinging out of the formation to accommodate for the full left rudder that the battleship is in now means that the second volley will be a shot in the dark at best. Please fix this. Give it to everyone or nobody.

For the improving CV players!

Does anyone have information regarding the absence of the odd tier aircraft carriers after RTS was eliminated years ago? I feel like they're lost to time now. Essex was a fun carrier to play and also the Independence.

Just for fun ;)

If you're not sure which CV line to start, the nation section of my intro video may help you decide. Otherwise, maybe it'll be entertaining for ya :)

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.

I’m aware there’s little possibility of these ships getting added into the game (or maybe there are on their plans, who knows). However, in the current meta full of so many paper ships, hybrid monstrosities and “we can assume…” (like the upcoming high tier Pan American cruisers), it would be interesting to see real historical ships once in a while (or other paper ships, but with a historical background). Again, it’s hard to see these added on the near future, but at least I can dream about it. So, this is my list of ships that would be interesting to see on WOWS. Disclaimer: this is all 100% my opinion. You can feel free to agree or disagree with some of them. No worries about that. Spoiler alert: there’s gonna be some CV, but please, stay with me. Submarines Just kidding. Of course there are options, but please no. Now, let’s start. Destroyers San Giorgio: a post-war Capitani Romani-class destroyer with 6 5”/38 caliber American guns and without torpedoes. Could be a decent Tier X gunboat with the Italian exhaust smoke and the engine boost. Johnston: we all know this one. I know, another Fletcher, but one that would sell like crazy (specially in the NA server) for her history. IMO, I’d see her at Tier IX with the heal of the Kidd (or even a zombie heal), the typical American smoke, the 10 torpedo launchers and an engine boost. Piourn: the Polish DD that screamed “I am a Pole” to the Bismarck the night before her last battle. Maybe at Tier VIII, similar to the Orkan but with smoke instead of radar. Laffey: an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer (like Gearing, but a bit slower) that participated on the D-Day and survived a fierce kamikaze attack. Today is a museum ship. A similar concept like Gearing (Tier X), but with DFAA and maybe a heal. Churruca: a Spanish destroyer with 5 120 mm guns, 6 torpedo launchers and a decent top speed (36 knots). A solid Tier VI. ZH1: a Dutch destroyer captured by the Germans scuttled at the Battle of Ushant after being crippled by British forces. It was armed with 5 120 mm guns and 8 torpedo launchers. Could be a Tier VII. Holland: a Dutch destroyer similar to Friesland, but a bit slower. Could be a decent Tier VIII gunboat. Eversten: a Dutch destroyer (very similar to Acasta) that was sunk in 1942. At Tier V. Cavalier: a British destroyer that is currently a museum ship. Armed with 4 4.5” guns and 10 torpedo launchers. Would need IFHE. A good Tier VII torpedo boat. Cruisers Sheffield: a light cruiser with a rich history behind. A solid Tier VII. Similar to Fiji or Edinburgh, but with HE added. SMS Blücher: not to be confused with the Admiral Hipper-class cruiser sunk in 1940. The last armored cruiser built by the German Empire, which was also sunk. Good artillery (210 mm guns), good armor, but not so fast (25-26 knots) and pretty much no AA. A beast at Tier V, but will suffer when up tiered. Bolzano: in a nutshell, a Trento with Zara’s guns and forecastle. Another glass cannon. Because of it, I’d slot her on Tier VI (maybe with a small heal, like Maya’s). Canberra: a County-class cruiser in service with the Australian Navy and sunk off Savo Island in 1942. Very fragile, but with guns that can hit hard. As her sister ships, Tier VI. Duquesne: a French treaty cruiser with basically no armor that will explode only when you see it. Maybe a YOLO cruiser or a sniper one at Tier V. Gotland: a Swedish hybrid cruiser with also not armor, nor good guns, and slow (28 knots). Could be reliant on her aircraft (similar to the Swordfish with HE bombs) and torpedoes. I’d slot her at Tier V. Tre Kronor: a post war Swedish cruiser with the same guns found on mid-tier Dutch cruisers, but with torpedoes. A decent Tier VI or VII. Averof: another armored cruiser with an outstanding history. Similar to Blücher, good guns, good armor, but slow. However, with not-so-mediocre AA. A good Tier IV, or a Tier V that would struggle (like Viribus Unitis). Houston: an American cruiser which was between the Pensacola and the Indianapolis (much closer to the latter) sunk alongside the Perth in 1942. A similar concept to the Indianapolis, but without the radar, a bit less range and worse AA at Tier VI. Ajax: a New Zealand Leander-class that fought against the Graf Spee in 1939. Similar to Leander (Tier VI), but with HE added. Admiral Scheer: the sister ship of Graf Spee that received some updates throughout the war (different superstructure, a clipper bow, more AA). Same speed, with a thinner armored belt. Like her sister, Tier VI. Quebec: a Fiji-class transferred to the Canadian Navy. Quite similar to Mysore (Tier VI), with torpedoes and HE added. Veinticinco de Mayo: an Argentinian heavy cruiser built in Italy armed with 6 190 mm guns, but light armor. Could be slotted at Tier V. Battleships Royal Oak: a Revenge-class sunk early on WW2 while anchored at Scapa Flow. A bit slower than QE, with slightly better armor an this particular one with torpedoes at the bow. Could be good at Tier VI, with the gyroscopic torpedoes of battlecruisers. Maybe sold alongside the U-47 (just kidding). Almirante Latorre: a Chilean battleship built in the UK, served with the Royal Navy and fought at Jutland, before being sold again to Chile. Good guns (10 14”), decent armor and not-so-mediocre AA (in her 1930’s configuration). Either at Tier V or VI. Erin: a battleship ordered by the Ottoman Navy but seized by the Royal Navy at the beginning of WW1. Similar to Iron Duke, but smaller and with pretty much no AA. A decent Tier V. Ersatz Monarch: basically, a bigger and better Viribus Unitis with bigger guns. Still, slow and with pretty much no AA. A better Tier V. No. 13 battleship: a project of a big battleship with 8 18” guns and better armor than previous Japanese designs. Seems like a bigger Nagato. I’d put it at Tier X (with a similar refit like Amagi or Kii), because there’s already a lot of Tier IX Japanese battleships. New Jersey: yes, another Iowa. Maybe taking a similar approach to the Massachusetts or Georgia (a brawler with precise secondaries), but that could still be able to snipe if necessary. Tier IX. Salamis: a cancelled Greek battleship (which by armor seems more like a battlecruiser) with 8 14” guns and lots of secondaries. A good Tier V. Seydlitz: a German battlecruiser based on the Moltke-class with improved armor and machinery. Was a big piñata at Jutland. Either Tier IV or V. Tosa: a Japanese battleship that was never completed with 10 410 mm guns. Similar to Amagi, but a bit slower. Either Tier VII or VIII. N3: a big, slow battleship with 9 18” guns. Also, ugly as hell. Preceded the Nelson-class design. A Tier IX fattleship. Arkhangelsk: oh yeah, Soviet bias. Like Royal Oak, a Revenge-class that was leased to the Soviet Navy. Like her sister ship (Tier VI), without the torpedoes, but with less mediocre AA and Stalin-guided shells. Pennsylvania: the sister ship of Arizona that survived Pearl Harbor. She was given a refit, on which she received better secondaries and AA. Still, very slow. Unlike California, she should sit at Tier VI. Spanish Littorio: yes, there was a plan for build a Littorio-class for Spain. If this come into fruition, please not another copy-paste of the Roma. At least with different secondaries at Tier VIII. Riachuelo: a Brazilian battleship project similar to the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes. Also at Tier VI. L20e a: a proposed German battleship that was intended to succeed the Bayern-class. Armed with 8 420 mm guns, but somewhat slow at 26 knots. An interesting Tier IX with a “what if..” update. Rivadavia: an Argentinian battleship built in the US. She carried 12 305 mm guns an had a speed of 22 knots. She served for quite a long time. Either Tier IV or V. Aircraft Carriers (I’m sorry. Please, don’t be mad) Akagi: a famous Japanese carrier with similar characteristics as Kaga, but a bit bigger and faster. An aircraft printer at Tier VIII. Wasp: a deviate of the Yorktown-class carrier with a smaller air group and no torpedo protection. Also, slower at 29 knots. Could be slotted at Tier VI. Sparviero: an ocean liner intended to be converted into a carrier for the Italian Navy. Never completed. It was supposed to carry a small air group, and be slow at 20 knots. Due to the aircraft carried (same as Aquila), I’d put it at Tier VI. Unryu: one of the last fleet carriers built and commissioned by the Japanese. It was similar to the Soryū and Hiryū. Fast, agile, but lightly armored. With a smaller air group, but with late war aircraft, could be a “balanced” Tier VIII. Shinano: the sister ship of Yamato converted into a support carrier that wasn’t completed when she was sunk by a submarine (how the turnarounds). Even though it was supposed to be a support carrier, I’ll see her as a broken Tier X with an absurdly large hangar. Europa: a gigantic ocean liner planned to be converted into a big carrier. I’d see her as a hybrid of Loewenhardt (same planes) with the sheer amount of planes of the Kaga, at Tier VIII. Karel Doorman: a sister ship of Colossus that was sold to the Dutch Navy in 1948. Could be a similar concept to the Saipan (Tier VIII with small air group but up tier aircraft with Dutch air strike). Glorious: a British aircraft carrier sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940. A similar CV to Ark Royal at the same tier, with different fighters and carpet bombers (only the Swordfish torpedo bombers). Elbe: a proposed conversion of a German ocean liner. With the same planes as Weser (Tier VI), but quite slower. Intrepid: I know the plans for uneven carriers removed during the CV rework. However, there can be an Essex-class with characteristics between Lexington and Midway at the same tier as the latter. Jun’yō: a small Japanese carrier that looks like a mini Taihō. With a decent amount of aircraft aboard, decent speed at 25.5 knots and no armor. Could be slotted at Tier VI. Joffre: a French carrier project that was cancelled when Germany invaded France in 1940. With similar characteristics as Béarn, but with updated planes and at Tier VIII. So, these are my proposals. I know there’s little possibility of one of these getting added into the game, but again, at least I can dream. Let me know what you think about. If you have other proposals, or anything else, feel free to write it below. Just be respectful, please. Thanks. Good luck and fair seas!

Alguien sabe si hay alguna forma de evitar entrar a partidas de rangos con cv? últimamente me ha dado un asco impresionante jugar rangos porque un chkalov te hace 20k en una pasada y no puedes derribarle ni un solo avión. Se nota que están desbalanceados pero como siempre, warwaming no hace ni hará nada al respecto.

Greetings When playing CV's and using all bombers (with the exception of the Russian Skip bombers) I can see the white bombsight but when you switch to the green bombsight or pickle it is not visible on the screen. It is past the bottom of the screen and hidden from view. I have to guess when it's time to release and I am not a very good guesser. I am sure this must be a settlings issue and I have tried the settings with no success Any ideas? Thanks in advance .

Loaded into this game and had no idea what was going on, Team said it was Brawls, I was like OK so be it, bugged into wrong mode (was tired!) That Conde carried but no shame in Reds game , Division on my team. I borked a Brawl with Annapolis and suffered, should have gone for a ram.. Red CV didnt target me as it was dealing with an angry Conde Weirdest MM for me yet.

This is an updated version of the one I posted on Reddit. Hopefully helps you better reflect and analyze your CV gameplay! As always feel free to share your thoughts and ask questions, and check out my channel for more content! https://www.youtube.com/@mercRus

Howdy all, very long time, no see. I decided recently to start the game again, to see how and if anything has changed etc bla bla, returning player bla bla, status of the game bla bla. Won't bore with details or impressions. What I will bore you with is with a Detonation that is impossible to happen. Let's take a quick look at the rules from the wiki: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Detonation The only possible explanation is that because of the way rocket attacks occur, each separate rocket can detonate me. So technically I may have been safe, but if say 3-4 rockets hit me before the rest and dropped me below 75% that would be likely. But considering it was an Aquila of all things that detonated me, this is to say the least quite silly. At least the Aquila player felt bad and apologized. Anyway, not looking to stir up trouble, just want a clarification and will be on my way. P.S. Before anyone starts talking about Juliet Charlie, it doesn't change the fact.

Talking about different things to help ya get a little better! 0:00 Intro 1:56 Using AP Bomber Heal 3:32 Switching Operating Zone and waiting for heal 4:34 Positioning for the Endgame considering the situation 5:23 Angling the AP Bomb Drop 8:43 IJN BBs, the snake to my MvR Mongoose, or Mongoose to my snake.. idk Animals.. 10:33 Think about next target 11:35 Using fighter for better line-ups 12:55 Torps, 1st to position enemy, 2nd to kill enemy 13:59 Mistake was made. 16:03 Mistakes were made... 16:48 End Screens

Playing the new IJN tier 6 cruiser has brought me to a point in wich WG refuses to do anything about. I DARE EVERY WG EMPLOYEE TO PLAY 10 TIER 6 MATCHES TODAY IN THE NEW IJN LIGHT CRUISER GOKASE. The cruiser is a blast to play, until... You have 2 carriers targeting you with 2 subs pinging you and 2 battleships shooting at you... At Tier 6, one cv and 1 sub are op to deal with. Why? No AA, no matter how you group up. Subs able to burn your dcp as they ping you to death. You just cannot handle multiple carrier drops and dodge subs torps. The carrier players understand how to gang up on a ship 1 by 1 until dead... Last match I was 10 km from a warspite and Bayern. Multiple carrier drops and 2 subs pinging me.... A glorious 4 min of HELL.... AND THIS WAS THE 3RD IN A ROW.... ..... FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME 1 CARRIER 1 SUB .... AS YOUR BATTLE LOADING SCREEN SAYS. SWITCH TIERS OR SHIP TYPES IF YOU EXPERIENCE LONG WAITING TIMES... STOP CODDELLING THE SELECT FEW.

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

Por favor wow mejores la mecánica de juego de los portaaviones o ponga la de antes( mecánica de juego de los portaaviones beta cerrada), si es imposible volver a esa mecánica de juego entonces mejoren los porta aviones, dejen que se pueda utilizar todo el escuadrón para atacar al objetivo, ejemplo los portaaviones EEUU y japoneses actualmente son inútiles ya que tirar solo 2 torpedos y 3 bombas es difícil acertar al objetivo así tengas presicion perfecta la bombas igual se dispersan dentro de círculo y no logran dar al objetivo y los torpedos por un momento pequenño de movimiento se dispersan mucho, mejoren esa dispersión o quiten le la dispersión, en caso de los aviones de ataque quitenle por favor el tiempo de disparo de los cohetes ya que así con ese tiempo que demoran en dispara los cohetes: 1. Te destruyen los aviones 2. Los dd son rápidos y hay cruceros que también son rápido y con es tiempo en que tardan en disparar los cohetes fácilmente los evaden, y 3. esta demás que los aviones de ataque disparen ya al no hacer nada de daño es un efecto bonito pero esta demás quitenlos o pónganle daño, en caso del escuadrón completo me enoja mucho queridos derrasolladores que ir atacar con todo mi escuadrón para solo tirar 2 torpedos o 3 bombas pierda todos los aviones solo por un ataque pequeño y esquivando las explosivas igual destruyen todos los aviones, 4. Es imposible acercarse a un barco ya que un portaaviones tier VIII CON UN CRUCERO TIER X tienen mucha AA y es difícil atacarlos ya que en juego machtmecking te entra a batalla con tier x es lógico que perderás todo el escuadrón me dejó entender, en realidad no combiene ir atacar sólo para un ataque pequeño, en ves de divertirme me enoja por que no puedo ni acercarme a un barco sin sacrificar a todo el escuadrón para solo tirar 2 torpedos o 3 bombas y como dije antes tienes que tener suerte para atinar le al objetivo, ese es mi opinión sobre la mecánica de juego de los portaaviones actual(muy insatisfecho), soy jugador veterado desde la beta cerrada y la mecánica de la beta cerrada era muy divertida, desde que cambiaron la mecánica de juego de los portaaviones deje de jugar wow por que hace enojar que perdiera todos los aviones solo para hacer un ataque pequeño, y volví al wow por que lo extrañe jugar pero sigue con esa mecánica de juego y creo que peor, no quiero dejar de jugar wow aun por que me gusta, soy jugador de puros CV(portaaviones) y estoy muy insatisfecho con la mecánica de juego actual, si se pudiera mejorar la mecánica sería genial, unas ideas que puedo darles es: quitarle la dispersión de bombas y torpedos actualmente si solo tiras 2 torpedo o 3 no haces mucho daño ademas para que quieres dispersión si esta apuntando tu mismo los aviones y eso si llegas al objetivo sin que te destruyan los aviones 2. Idea : atacar con todo el escuadrón completo, de que sirve llevar artos aviones si los vas a perder la mayoría en un solo ataque de 2 torpedo o bombas mejor que ataquen todos de un solo ataque para que no frustrarse por perder los aviones del escuadrón y sean destruidos en vano (es injusto que solo los rusos ataquen con todo su escuadrón) 3. Idea: vuelvan a la mecánica de juego de los Cv(portaaviones) que estaba en la betas cerrada y a inicios de la beta abierta, esa mecánica de juego era muy divertido te destruían los aviones pero así lograbas atinarle 2 o 3 torpedos a veces todos por que los barcos abandonaban su flota y era muy nivelado ya que los barcos(cruceros, acorazados y destructore) tenían la habilidad de dispersar mucho lo torpedos y bombas y contando la maniobralidad y fácilmente lo esquivan, sería muy genial que volvieran a esa mecánica de juego lo digo enserio actualmente como dije antes los CV(portaaviones) EEUU y japonés no sirven hace frustrar mucho perder todos los aviones sin si quiera poder acercarte y tan solo para tira 2 torpedo o bombas, Sería muy genial y divertido que vuelva esa mecánica claro sus mejoras y desventajas respectivos, extraño la mecánica de juego de antes era muy divertido espero lean mis ideas y las acepten que con mucho gusto las ofrezco para mejora wow y en especial los portaaviones que solo sirven para detectar al enemigo, no quiero dejar de jugar wow solo por la mecánica de juego de los cv que es frustrante, por favor hagan algo con los cv que actualmente no sirven de mucha ayuda para la flota enemiga o aliada se los pido de un jugador veterano comandante y amante de los CV(PORTAAVIONES) del juego por favor se los pido mejoren o vuelvan a la mecánica de juego de antes gracias. Con el caso de portaaviones alemán graff zeppelin ( portaaviones tier VIII) es inútil, poca vide de los aviones, por escuadrón ataca con 3 torpedos de 35 nudos de velocidad re lentos(suerte si le das con la dispersión tan grande que tiene) y hacen poquísimo daño 3000 de daño por torpedo, los aviones de ataque lanzan 6 cohete demoran en dispararles a la hora de atacar y tiene poquísimas vida no llegas a atacar por que te destruyen todo el escuadrón de una, en caso de los bombarderos ataca por escuadrón solo 2 aviones( 2 bombas) también así le des ciudadela con las bombas estas en tier 8 que te meten con tier x actualmente no hace daño y no son muy precisas ya que por mas que te acerque y tengas precisión perfecta del radio de ataque de los bombardeos las bombas se dispersan igual dentro de radio de ataque y no logras darle al objetivo por más que tengas precisión perfecta, ataca con poco aviones y poco daño el portaaviones alemán graff zepellin antes era uno de los mejores portaaviones premiun ahora es una compra inútil ya que no sirve para atacar como dije antes sus aviones tiene poca vida y no logran llegar al objetivo sin que maten a todo el escuadrón solo para tira 2 bombitas de 3590 de daño máximo que hacen y torpedos re lentos que hacen 3000 de daño No es justo perder todo los aviones de escuadrón para tan poco daño o solo para tirar 2 o 3 torpedo y 2 bombas y eso tener suerte de atinar al objetivo ya que son dispersas la bombas y los torpedo relentos, el porta aviones alemán graff zapellin es premiun y es el más caro debería ser mejor que todos los portaaviones premiun, es muy caro para tan poco utilidad o beneficio en batalla por favor mejorenlo ya que actualmente es una compra inútil y muy cara, el portaaviones ruso es mucho mejor por su ataque de aviones, denle alguna mejora al portaaviones alemán se los pido por favor desarrolladores con esto termino mis sugerencias o ideas y también término lo insatisfecho y injusto que es para los comandantes de portaaviones espero me apoyen y acepten mis ideas gracias.

Just some general thoughts on these ships with some gameplay and closing it with my thoughts on these types of questions lol

Hello, When playing IJN CV's I tend to try to drop my torpedo's as close as possible to guarantee a hit while other people say to drop farther because of the speed and range of the torpedo's. Just want to know if I should start dropping at farther range to conserve planes.

Talking about Aquila, the design of recent carriers, and if this is recommended! https://youtu.be/FuFSl1I1HrY

So... When """Rekt-xington"""" Starts to "Rekt"? Barely apart from being called ""best CV"", i only see """rekt-xingtons""" just being almost useless on my games, both enemies and allies...

I just had a bunch of Randoms matches with nearly all including both CV's and Subs. As a BB player they were completely AWFUL. The last 2 had 2 Subs, 3 DD's and a CV per side so it was absolutely a disheartening lesson in frustration including a Torp-Detonation... ugh. Everything spams Fire, CV's keep everything spotted, Cap-Support is a dream, DC is perpetually on Cooldown, AA is a joke and ASW just makes splashes. Brawling ships have no place in this Randoms meta so please make one where we can actually PLAY against other ships, not just kite, mitigate and hope. If one thinks "But no BB/CR players will play the normal Randoms", then case-in-point. I'm certain to get a "mixed" reaction as CV/Sub players have a vested interest in keeping the Big Pinatas in their games, otherwise they'd have to fight eachother.

Here is my suggestion for what an actual USN CV line with both Attack and a Support line could look like (including the Alternative Attack line). I'm still wondering what could go in the TX slot for the Support line since the US didn't produce that much heavier designs (that I know of) to fill that TX support line gap. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

DD shell hits BB.. 0 damage.. "TORPEDO TUBES DESTROYED!!" .. first hit, every time. (since the "fix" a couple weeks ago) .... volley of 16 inch shells plow through a Carrier deck.. flight operations resume at 100% ?? absurd. ... We should be able to "Incapacitate" the flight deck until it's DCP recharges. and "Destroy" hangers, eliminating entire squadrons for the rest of the game.