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 Programs 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

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 173 results

  1. I have all the tier 8 premium CVs besides the Graf Zeppelin, and I have found that each is fun and interesting in its own way. I considered buying GZ, but it just doesn't look worth it, not as strong as the others. The dive bombers look abysmal, missing both bombs even on well lined up drops and even if they hit it's usually a ricochet or shatter, or only one single citadel. Compare this to Enterprise and Saipan, and even Kaga, which can frequently land 10k+ drops with their bombs. You'd think either the rockets or torpedoes would make up for this, but GZ torpedoes seem to do the lowest damage at the tier besides Implacable, and the rockets seem rather inaccurate. Is the GZ a good ship or just significantly weaker than the other tier 8 CVs and in need of buffs?
  2. snipeashot

    Sapian

    Today I played my sapain because I am in need of money. During the game 90% of my rockets & bombs missed even though I led them & got a 19pt captain on the ship. I think they tweaked it again or its just bad RNG but wonders how it's going for other people. This is also not just a one game occurrence, happens a lot. If you got any ideas or tips let me know.
  3. I am a bit late to the meeting, does anyone know the reason why the most flammable ship class for WWI and WWII, the aircraft carrier, can not catch on fire for longer than about 5 seconds in this game if at all? Was it lack of knowledge or willful ignorance on the part of the dev team?
  4. War Gaming World of Warships Dev team, please make a new function for CV players to allow them to Abort Mid-Attack run when either the target was killed or an over fly has occurred. Sometimes when targeting a DD we fly past or when targeting a low health boat and mid attack run it is destroyed thus causing us to continue on the attack path until the time is up. I would like to abort the drop early so as not to have to fly the entire attack path. This could allow us to get on to a new target more quickly or to send planes back to carrier before running into a wall of red ships.
  5. So, I'm currently in the process of free XP-ing the upgrades on the Lexington before I sell my Ranger and buy it, but I've come across a little bit of a dilemma. With the rocket planes, I have a choice between the regular HVAR rockets or the big Tiny Tim ones. I know what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, but I'm not sure which one to get. On one hand, there's lots of HVAR rockets which means I'm probably going to miss the tiny little DDs that I use my rocket planes on less often. On the other hand, the Tiny Tim rockets pack a huge punch, meaning that they'll do more damage on DDs and on the cruisers and BBs I occasionally have to use the rocket planes on. Because I'm caught in this conundrum, I thought I'd pose it to the rest of you: Which rocket planes do you think are better, the HVARs or the Tiny Tims? Thanks in advance to anyone who responds. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  6. I think something is very wrong with the Graf Zeppelin's AP bombs. No citadels in two matches WHEN they hit. How did you guys managed to make already situational AP bombs on GZ worse?
  7. 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.
  8. monpetitloup

    What is this WG

    ENOUGH WG!!! ship with 0 aa in 3 cv match!!! seriously? do you want your new players to uninstall the game or what? @Sub_Octavian @Gneisenau013 @Femennenly@Bualar@turbo07
  9. Ever since the CV rework arrived, we no longer have the odd tier CV's, and WG has stated that they might return as an alternate CV lines on even tiers... someday... maybe... possibly... and hopefully. LOL. Nevertheless, the description of Tier VII Operation still shows the CV icon as a possible ship type to play in, since it hasn't been updated. At first, I was going to ask if WG should allow Tier VI CV's into Tier VII Operation... but Tier VI CV's already have Tiet VI Operations to play in, so IMHO, I think it would be only fair to let Tier VIII CV's to enter the Tier VII Operation. As it stands now, the only Tier VII Operation we have left is Narai. Still, I believe having a CV could be a boon for the team. When playing with bunch of random people, how often do we see our team not doing the objectives properly, or too many chase after one objective only to let the transports suffer? I think that the CV's, with their fast planes, would be able to provide a quick reaonse that can hastily react to how the team go about doing the mission, thereby covering for certain shortcomings... sometimes anyway. In case anyone thinks that having Tier VIII CV's in Tier VII Operation might seem too stronk, I would like to remind that we already a Tier Vi Operation where a Tier VI CV is fighting against Tier II and III ships with barely, if any, AA at all. At least for Narai, AFAIK, the kind of ships that the bots get aren't exactly short of AA. If the aforementioned Tier VI Operation is just acceptable, then this should be okay as well, IMO. Plus, CV's are no longer the nuking death machines of the old RTS days with high alpha's and cross drops. IIRC, the reworked CV's have the overall damage output that is more or less in line with other ship types... or so I heard. Please don't quote me on that, thank you. Additionally, this might help those who are... weary (so to speak) to play their Tier VIII CV's in other modes, due to whatever reasons. Operations last long enough and have plenty of targets to go after, on top of having no human beings on the enemy team, so the reworked version of CV's should be able to contribute quite well... when played well, that is. LEL. So there you have it. Should WG allow Tier VIII CV's into Tier VII Operation? I personally say... yes. My 2 doubloons.
  10. monpetitloup

    Best game ever!

    i would like to take this moment to thank my colleagues in the cvs for waiting max time in q for a match. i did the rest, despite concerted efforts by my teammates to torp me.
  11. 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...
  12. I guess this was coming a while now, pretty much shows the situation with Hosho and how easy it is to sealclub and farm damage with. For anyone TL;DW, basically Hosho gameplay spamming the torpedo squad that uses 2 torps/attack while most opponents have negligible AA. Reaches almost 150k damage and talks about the situation.
  13. Pure curiosity. I know some carriers pack a surprisingly serious secondary armament and the thought occured that maybe it would be helpful against DDs.
  14. Its probably best if you just glance over the Underlined and bold parts. Its quite long. Plz reply and share your experiences. Hi everybody! I have been looking around at other forums and have thought that It would be a good idea to have one, big, main forum where everybody can voice their opinions (i.e. rage and complain) about the recent carrier rework. I have been getting several different opinions about what the carrier rework and hotfix has done to our warships. I have been looking around to see what kind of different opinions we have been getting about the carrier rework. From what I have currently seen, the most trouble has come from destroyers. The complaint is that aircraft spotting is too good, and that they are permaspotted and shelled by everything in the vicinity. The same can be said about scout cruisers, which lack the AA defense to repel concentrated air attack, and who cannot output enough damage to repel the hail of fire that the rest of the battle fleet will throw at it. This also does not allow it to spot other targets, voiding its purpose. Light and Heavy cruisers can output a substantial amount of AA firepower, but only the most powerful light cruisers and the most AA oriented heavy cruisers to repel a concentrated air attack. Under constant attack from my fully maxed Lexington, only the enemy Atlanta, AA spec Cleveland, a new Orleans with defensive AA fire, and a trio of battleships pooling their AA could prevent themselves from being decimated by my aircraft (even the AA ships still took minor damage from the remains of my squadrons). Light cruisers that shoot from behind islands are immobile, and vulnerable to attack from bombers and torpedo planes. Heavy cruisers, especially those with an AA focus, are the only ships capable of repelling constant attack by same tier carriers without major damage. Most battleships, with the exception of high tier American ones, generally have crap or mediocre AA, and need an escort or a division to pool their AA. However, concealment isn't really that important, and all BBs can take a hit, so other than being unable to dodge torpedoes, they did OK. The main consensus is that CV's are not that fun to play against. On top of that, It is hard to repel air attack, and being permanently spotted is deadly for most light cruisers and destroyers. I have also heard complaints from the aircraft carrier community. The US Cv community, complains that dive bombers require too much RNG and that the torpedoes don't do enough alpha. The IJN community is having trouble with AP bombs and the bomb sights, which are accurate but hard to use. The british CV line is still going through buffs and nerf at an alarming rate. Right now (2 patches from now this could have changed entirely) the british CV community complains that the short arming distance torpedoes are carried by aircraft that lack the health and speed to reach their target, and the bombing runs are rather flat and sort of have a forward rather than a mostly down trajectory. On top of that, all Cv's are having trouble doing reliable damage to ships. For example, American CV's struggle to inflict damage with bombs to well armored battleships, whose deck they fail to penetrate, and maneuvering cruisers, which they lack the accuracy to hit. Many Cv's complain that other ships do damage and earn credits farming damage off of cruisers and destroyers that they spot, while the CV hemorrhages aircraft trying to get damage done and the cruisers and destroyers rage over being spotted and focused down by the rest of the enemy ships. In conclusion, I believe that carrier spotting mechanics are a death sentence for any ships that rely on concealment. I also believe that Carriers fail to do much damage due to the fact that their planes, while fast, have too little health or maneuverability. Also, Carriers don't like being up-tiered. I look forward to your opinions and ideas about how to fix the carrier. Please PLZ! comment below. Photo gallery:
  15. 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.
  16. Basically, it's been a little while since I've played the game and about the same length of time since I cared about what was going on here. The last time I did, the big topic of conversation was that AA had been significantly buffed to the point that CVs were completely useless; Their planes would get shredded like a brick of cheese put to a grader. The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about playing a few matches in the near future and I've generally had fun with the CVs I've bought since the rework went live. I've got a Ranger, a Furious, an Enterprise, and a Zeppelin and I enjoy playing all of them on occasion. However, I may not come back if these ships are in such a position that they can't be competitive and get good damage numbers. As such, I pose to all of you the question in the title. Thank you in advance for whatever helpful answers I may get.
  17. So I play quite a bit of carriers. Since 8.5, I realise I am losing a lot more planes than before (which is good for balance, I guess) but I still am able to do respectable damage (In a tier 8, too!), all throughout the match. I do this by pre-dropping until I have 2 possible attack runs. One is to do damage, the other serves as meat shields. However, that only leaves one drop that I can’t afford to mess up, and lots of flying to do afterwards. So what I propose is to make aircraft squadrons more similar to how they were pre-rework. MECHANICS Basically, take every possible aircraft squadron, and make the total amount of attack runs two. This will make runs more worthwhile. The catch is, that planes from the backup squadron don’t replace ones in your attacking squad if they get shot down, so it’s possible your attacks can be “blunted.” For example, take Lexington’s squad of 9 torpedo bombers, shave one off for a total of 8, and have an attacking flight of 4. This change makes it so you have higher potential alpha, and with more planes in an attack run a higher chance of making a strike, but also the possibility of being completely denied (The damage reduction for an attacking flight may need to be tweaked since 1)There are more planes in the flight and 2)AA is only targeting the attack squad). But if you knew that you would probably lose all of the planes before you could even make a strike, why even go for it? From a surface ships’ perspective, it becomes less of a thousand, guaranteed cuts to a hundred, slightly bigger cuts, but now you have the ability to lessen the initial blow. What happens to the backup squadron, then? Well, while you are making a strike, they will be either immune to damage, or have it heavily reduced, and since they don’t fly down to make an attack, you can gain instant control of them after a strike. There will be two versions of this, if you make a successful strike (i.e. you get off your ordinance) you will immediately gain control of the other squadron and be susceptible to incoming fire. If you don’t make a successful strike, (i.e. they all get shot down before you could make the strike) you get a small window of immunity after taking control of the other squad so you can try to get out of the area (recalling using “F” is disabled during this window). This should make slingshotting impossible or not worth it, as the invincibility window only applies if you lose an attacking flight. A little nitpick, but I believe that all planes should be flying at the level at which they attack, TBs will always fly low (but not enough to avoid flak unless on an attack run), rockets will always be medium height, and DBs will always fly high in the sky so they don’t do that “roller coaster” animation that honestly sickens me, but that isn’t extremely important, just something I had to say. BALANS? Obviously, changes will have to be made for certain carriers. You thought 3 AP dive bombers from the Hakuryu were bad? Try 6. Either the Alpha for the ordinance has to be changed, or the total size of the squadron has to be smaller. As for rocket squadrons, there really isn’t a need for them to be bigger. The total number of attacks should be kept to two, but the size of their attacking flights should be the same, because the damage they can output in DDs (especially Enterprise’s) is already really high. As for the planes themselves, it’s tricky. Increasing the HP of the planes will just make being a bottom tier ship fighting them a nightmare, while leaving it the same means the possibility of being completely dumpstered by higher tier AA. So one possible solution I believe may work is increasing armour when under fire from higher tiers, while decreasing against lower tiers, but not enough to make them effectively equal. NATIONAL FLAVOR? Another thing that can make carriers different from another nation’s carrier is the drop pattern of torpedoes. With an increase in the total number dropped, you can get away with unique patterns. Some patterns I suggest is a line pattern for USN CVs (all the planes are in one row), and more of a rectangle for IJN CVs (Several rows of two torpedoes one after another). Or maybe something else based on historical practices or whatever. The premium CVs can get their unique drop patterns they had pre-rework too, provided they have enough torpedoes to launch in a single attack run. TL;DR Basically, take the current squadrons have them only be able to make two total runs while keeping the squadron size the same.
  18. Randomly, my ping will spike to the 450ms range. Whenever this happens, it seriously glitches out any CV's squadrons, making the game unplayable. The best way to describe it is that the planes are "drunk". Instead of flying in formation, they fly wherever they want. Serpentine, off the screen, backwards, all without me even putting in any input to control the planes. If I were to take my hands off of the keyboard and mouse, instead of flying straight forward, they do everything but that. This greatly affects attacking with the planes, as not only is it extremely difficult to get them to a target, it is nearly impossible to hit the target. This is bad enough to the point that whenever I load into a match it's basically a Russian roulette style gamble if I'm able to properly play or not be able to do anything at all. Of the 44 games I've played in my Ranger, about 5 or 6 were these glitched games, and that's with actively avoiding playing while it's happening. World of Warships is the only game that experiences these lag spikes, too. They come and go whenever they wish. One game I'm fine ping-wise, the next I'm in the triple digits and my planes are nearly unresponsive. It's almost like a switch is flipped in between games or before I even start playing that turns my ping from what it normally is, to the high ping. It doesn't even start in the middle of a match or goes away in the middle, it always seems to be from the beginning of a match to the end. If I check my ping before the match and I'm hopefully okay, then I'm good for a match. But if I forget to check and load into a match and it's high ping, I know I'm going to have to deal with it for the whole match. Checking my connection through a connection checker online does not show if I'm going to have this issue or not. Using command prompt with the "ping" command directed at World of Warships gives me a good idea, but it's not 100% accurate. Through this way, I've dodged at least 10 games where I would have been glitching out. If it's high, I'd have to wait an hour, possibly longer, for it to return to normal numbers to be safe. But, if I forget to check before every game, I run the risk of loading into a bad game and not being able to play. It's not exactly the high ping that needs to be addressed, but the issue caused by it. Any other class can play with a half second delay. It sucks, but at least you're able to play. This issue with CVs can potentially randomly cripple anyone who plays them, effectively making them barely more useful than a player who is AFK. The load on my WiFi does not affect this as I get normal gameplay and this bugged gameplay regardless of whether I'm home alone or there's multiple people streaming videos. I am also not the only person experiencing this bug, as another player, chip521, has also made a post the 21st regarding this exact issue in an old CV bug thread. This issue has been happening to me ever since the CV rework has come out, but has only recently started to bother me since I have started playing CVs more. Here are a couple short replays of it in action: WoWS CV ping glitch 1.mp4 WoWS CV ping glitch 2.mp4 If people want more replays, I'll see if I can get a few clips of trying to fly straight without touching the controls or just trying to navigate around the map.
  19. Fighters: *Issue with fighters being unable to engage a second target if under attack themselves unless first target is killed. Example: Fighters attack Target A (bombers), commander spots Target B (fighters) coming to defend Target A. Fighters don't have time to finish off Target A and are given a command to attack Target B. Verbal response from fighters is received, Target A is released from pursuit and continues retreating. Fighters engages Target B and are unable to inflict any damage at all but do expend ammo till empty and then return to CV and normal if survived battle. *Note this happens without fault every time. *Issue with fighters receiving a command and getting a verbal response and not moving. *Issue with fighters glitching when following enemy plane that is landing. -Fog_Destroyer_Yukikaze *Note: planes shouldn't be able to land in the first place while being attacked. *Issue with single fighter (none CV fighters) bugging CV planes, once engaged by a single fighter, planes will not be released of snare till that fighter has landed back at its ship or is destroyed. *Issue with fighters escorting torpedo bombers, if fighters get within range of any enemy fighters (including CV fighters and float fighters), the fighters will remain stuck in the air until it is destroyed by the enemy fighters if the torpedo bombers move out of escort range. -SG_Oneill Dive Bombers: *Issue with bombers getting visual hit and not doing damage. *Issue with lag effecting bombers causing them to completely miss even though the ship is in the entire outline. *Note - this seems like a client vs server issue. *Issue with bombers not dropping bombs. *Note dive bombers have a very high miss rate, you can see the misses in the water very easily. Torp. Bombers: *Issue with correctly manual dropping but having the plane refuse to recognize it. It will then fly to where it shows the torp spread but just spin around over the ship. -Inquisitioner *Issue for all surface attack planes: If command is given too late to a target the plane will circle, the glitch is unless manual controlled to back away then attack again the planes will just circle till they die. Other CV issues: *Issue with all CV planes that are set to land, if a fire begins while planes are in route, and fire is put out after they begin circling the planes will not auto land but continue to circle until manually directed to land again. *Not being able to zoom out enough forces the map use too much resulted in commands given in map not working. Planes highlighted flicker as command is given but no verbal response received and no way point being set. *Possible Fighter CVs having a lower income then none fighters. -Shadow1_Nemesis *Note: 40k avg cred /w 30 planes kills and 10k dmg to ships /w loss. 70k cred /w 50 planes killed and 20k dmg to ships /w loss. 90k cred /w 44 plane kills, 20k dmg dealt to ships /w win. #s are without 50k loss in ship price & at Tier VII. If rushed early game CVs go negative in creds, *Issue with enemy planes appearing randomly on the mini map for a second then disappearing. -Timpanus *Personally notice this to be horizontal to my ships location, and not limited to edge of map. Possible correlation between launch of enemy plane or run file. Will continue to update here as US players are still unable to utilize bug report button in login screen. Will use names at end of post so that viewers are able to scroll down to see original context of the report.
  20. hammer_1

    Teir X CV play

    How many of you play tier X CVs since the update? I play tier 8 and below because the AA is unrealistically high at tier X and my tier 8 planes lose a squadron to attack with 3 planes. I am constantly getting up tiered to X with predictable results and un-satisfying game play. The planes do not survive a second attack on one or two ships grouped and no pilot would have survived WW2 with those losses! In reality planes made multiple passes on the Mushashi even without having any ammo left to attack during the Battle of the Phillipines during the close of WW2. ('Last stand of the Tin Can Sailors') In reality the CV had obsoleted the BB by the middle of the Pacific war and should be able to do more damage than any late war BB per battle. Airplanes and submarines sank the tonnage, it's not what you want to hear and I do want ships to be the main focus of WOW, but the tier X AA needs serious nerffing. Or are there equal numbers of tier X CV players still, even though I never see them at tier 8, and I am often drafted into tier 10?
  21. MakersMike

    Air defense question

    I'm pretty new, and I assumed something about planes attacking but now I'm not sure. When planes are attacking my ship, I notice that little airplane figure that I can move around with my mouse. I'm color blind, but I think it's orange. Am I supposed to aim that towards the attacking planes for better chance at shooting them down or what is that for? And is there a button I should push while aiming it or just point it towards the plane? Thanks
  22. Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game. With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him. Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot. So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
×