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

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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 456 results

  1. Langley Strategy?

    I am getting 180 xp each battle RESPOND ASAP
  2. Is anybody else having CV related bugs after the last patch. I tried to play several cv games and in each one i was unable to control my fighters at all. The left click button did not assign way points or control the fighters like normal. Completely unable to play as a cv currently as only the F key will launch them but once airborne i have no way of controlling the fighters. I reset all my controls to default but this didnt not work either.
  3. T5 CVs Should Not See T6 CVs

    Putting a CV that can’t strafe against one that can is nonsense. It’s helpful (if painful) to come up against Clevelands. You need to learn which cruisers create no-fly zones. But Bogue vs. Independence is useless.
  4. Has Anyone Else noticed how US CV's have become unplayable due to the removal of a fighter group? I have Gone up against other carriers with 2 fighters groups and got my fighters removed (upgraded and have HP and DPS skills). Enterprise has 2 squads of each, Lexington has 1, Shokaku has 1/2/3, graf Zep has 2. Seems like the only way to get to 9/10 is by losing every single game, or buying your way to 9 and 10
  5. This is just a reminder to be alert for strange behavior by your CV, it might not be a bad player, but a second account used to pad win rate for the enemy CV. I was in a tier 9 match this morning, and our Taiho was not communicating from the start, it sent out it's fighters to the far corners of the map on our North spawn and left them there. The CV might have launched a strike, but it shot down no planes, and was bottom of our team with 135 base xp. Bad, frustrating, but not that unusual. The enemy CV came in third with 3 ships kills but shot down only 4 planes - so our AS Taiho shot down no planes, and it got matched up against a Strike Taiho that ran wild - bad luck ... I looked up our CV's stats and started to see a weird pattern, it had only 644 games, 598 in the LAST 47 days - that's pretty quick to get to a tier 9 CV - one in which he already has 91 games in! He had 3/4 of his games in IJN CV's all of them with bad win rates ( all of them sub 35% and the Taiho at 28% in 91 games ). He had a bunch of games in a Scharnhorst - and was awful in it as well, but that would explain the ability to get free xp needed to speed to a tier 9 in a short period of time while only winning a third of your games. I looked up the other CV stats, and found 600 of of 1600 total games were in his Taiho - no tier 10 Hakyru games, just stopped at the Taiho. The telling part was that he was a bad to mediocre player from tier 4-7 in IJN CV's, total meatball stats. Then the winrate goes up 5% in the Shokaku over his 150 games in it, and then he has a 70% win rate in the Taiho over his 600 games. Amazing improvement? His damage and plane kills are only slightly above average, as are his ship kills, what is remarkably high is his K/D ratio of over 14 and his win rate at 70+ percent. I sent in a ticket to wargaming with a screenshot of the match I was in, and the names of the two players. Hopefully they can datamine the match histories of both players to see how many times they have faced each other - I suspect it's going to be high, much higher than is possible by any random draw. So, the point of this is to ask you to keep a watch on CV players that are not just bad ( anyone is going to look over matched going up against a CV specialist from a top 10 clan ) , but so bad that they are trying to throw the match by not competing. Take a minute or two after a suspicious match to check for aberrant player histories, or unusual skill jumps. If you see something that looks phony, make sure you take the time to send in a report with screenshots and replay's to wargaming support. It's hard enough to win a match against a good opposing team when the playing field is level, it's near impossible when the match is being rigged. Have a good one.
  6. CV UI Help

    Does anyone have any suggestions for CV graphics settings? I have a beefy setup because of my job, and when playing ships I have no issues running max settings and don't have any FPS drops, stuttering etc. As soon as I load into a CV game I start getting all kinds of weird UI bugs where my planes won't strafe, they get locked in combat but instead of showing up on top of each other the two fighter units will be stuck apart etc etc. I read an article about turning off animate small objects which helps smooth things out and this might totally be in my head but I think I am missing small details that help when planes are about to strafe. Also, you aren’t able to see AA as well so I tend to find my aircraft floating around being shot down for 5 secs before I can move them, and even then I cant always tell the source of the AA. I have tried lowering to LOW with Animate small objects and yet the issue still occurs. I am totally fine with system resources no CPU, memory, GPU constraints nor network blips so its not a system issue.
  7. The air-to-air strafing option for fighters is just wrong on many levels and it should be eliminated for aircraft-to-aircraft engagements. It creates far too much damage to the target squadron and is a completely unrealistic tactic. Aircraft operate in three dimensions so a wingtip to wingtip strafing run of fighters against other aircraft makes no sense. For example, if the target squadron drops 50 meters in altitude the aggressor squadron's bullets would simply fly overhead. It also assumes that the target squadron would not maneuver which is also unrealistic. Fighter vs. fighter contact at the merge is not a jousting match, it's a 3 dimensional battle. The current strafing profile represents a 2D mindset in a 3D environment. If it appears in any WWII era fighter tactics documents, which I doubt, it is likely only in very early (pre-1930s) air-to-air tactics manuals. Strafing would, however, be a wonderful addition for fighter-to-ship attacks. Damage to the armored ships would be minimal so it would only be useful against a DD or possibly a CV, and it would need to be limited to fighters shooting .50Cal or 12.5mm ammo and above (i.e. higher tier aircraft). This tactic was used successfully in WWII by allied fighters and other specially equipped aircraft using API or HE rounds. Smaller caliber weapons just wouldn't penetrate even thinly armored DDs so the lower tier fighters shouldn't have that option. Lastly, many WWII carrier based fighters were equipped to carry smaller bombs. That could be made a refit option should the captain choose it. It would be an especially effective option if all enemy fighters have been taken out as it would give the remaining fighters additional game play.
  8. CV FRENCH (BEARN) FOR PREMIUM

    Searching and researching I found the French carrier bearn built in 1920 by France and participated in WW2. It would be good if it were for reward of some event: FOR T6 : SUPPORT ME!!!! BEARN 1945 LAST CAMO AND LAST CONFIGURATION AA BORFORS & ORLEIKONS Béarn was a French aircraft carrier. It served with the Marine nationale (French Navy) in World War II and later. Béarn was commissioned in 1927, and was the only aircraft carrier France produced until after World War II, and the only ship of its class built. She was to be an experimental ship, and was slated for replacement in the 1930s by two new ships of the Joffre class. She was generally comparable to other early carriers developed by the major navies of the world. However, France did not produce a further replacement and as naval aviation lagged in France, Béarn continued to serve past her time of obsolescence. In 1939, she ended her career as an experimental ship, but after the defeat of France in June 1940 she was docked at Martinique, where she remained for the next four years. Eventually she was sent to the United States for a refit, which ended in March 1945, allowing her to serve briefly before the end of the war as an aircraft transport. She was dismantled in 1967. Over the course of her long career, Béarn never launched her aircraft in combat. She was named after the historic French province of Béarn. Béarn was originally designed as a Normandie-class battleship; she was laid down at the Société Nouvelle des Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée shipyard in La Seyne on 10 January 1914. The outbreak of World War I in August 1914 interrupted work, which was halted for the duration of the conflict.[1] By that time, work on Béarn had not significantly progressed: her hull was only 8–10 percent complete and her engines were only 25 percent finished. Her boilers were 17 percent assembled, and her turrets were at 20 percent completed.[2] The incomplete hull was launched in April 1920 to clear the slipway, though the Navy had not yet decided what to do with it.[3] That year, a French delegation visited the British aircraft carrier HMS Argus, and out of this visit came the proposal to convert Béarn into an aircraft carrier, which was designated Project 171.[4] On 18 April 1922, the Navy determined that Béarn would be completed as an aircraft carrier.[5] Her four sisters, which were at further stages of completion, were instead broken up for scrap. Much of the material from breaking up these ships was used to complete Béarn and several cruisers also ordered in 1922.[6] Conversion work began in August 1923, and lasted until May 1927.[7] General characteristics and machinery[edit] Béarn was 170.6 m (560 ft) long between perpendiculars and 182.6 m (599 ft) long overall. She had a beam of 27.13 m (89.0 ft) and a draft of 9.3 m (31 ft). Her standard displacement was 22,146 long tons (22,501 t), which at full load increased to 28,400 long tons (28,900 t). A retractable charthouse was installed in the flight deck toward the bow of the ship.[8][9] She was equipped with two sets of steam turbines that drove the inner pair of propeller shafts and a pair of reciprocating engines that powered the outer shafts. Steam was supplied by six Normand du Temple water-tube boilers that were trunked into a single funnel on the starboard side of the flight deck. A large vented chamber was fitted below the funnel to mix cooler air with the boiler exhaust, which was intended to reduce air turbulence over the flight deck. Béarn's propulsion system enabled her to steam at a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph). She carried 2,160 long tons (2,190 t) of fuel oil. At a cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ship could steam for 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi). She had a crew of 875 officers and men.[8][9] Aircraft and armament[edit] Béarn was originally built to accommodate up to 40 aircraft. Her initial complement consisted of a squadron of twelve torpedo bombers, twelve reconnaissance aircraft, and a squadron of eight fighters. The ship's aviation facilities consisted of a 180-meter-long (590 ft) flight deck and three electrically powered elevators; the aft and central elevators were larger and were intended to handle the larger torpedo bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, while the smaller fighters could be lifted by the smaller forward elevator. She had a pair of hangars that were 124-metre (407 ft) long. Below the hangar, there were aircraft maintenance facilities and storage for spare parts. Béarn stored up to 3,530 cubic feet (100 m3) of aviation gasoline and 530 cu ft (15 m3) of oil, which was protected by inert gas.[8][10] The ship's gun armament comprised eight 6.1 in (150 mm) /55 Mod 21 guns in casemates for defense against surface attack, and six 76 mm (3.0 in) anti-aircraft (AA) guns, eight 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns, and sixteen machine guns. In 1944–1945, she was refitted in the United States and equipped with a new anti-aircraft battery that consisted of four 5"/38 dual-purpose guns in single mounts, twenty-four Bofors 40 mm guns in six quadruple mounts, and twenty-six Oerlikon 20 mm guns in individual mountings.[8] Service history[edit] Before the decision to convert Béarn into an aircraft carrier was made, the French Navy decided to construct a mocked-up flight deck on the unfinished hull after it was launched in April 1920. The aviator Paul Testeconducted a series of landing experiments on the temporary flight deck that concluded in October. These experiments convinced the Navy to convert Béarn as a semi-experimental ship, which should be replaced by purpose-built aircraft carriers as soon as was practicable. The Joffre class, ordered in the late 1930s, were nevertheless not completed.[11] In the meantime, Béarn was commissioned for sea trials that began on 1 September 1926, and couple with final fitting-out work, lasted to May 1928, when she joined the French fleet on active service.[12] In the late 1920s, André Jubelin, a future admiral and pioneer of the French naval air force, served aboard the ship.[13] In March 1936, a Potez 565 took off from Béarn, the first time a twin-engined aircraft had ever operated from an aircraft carrier.[14] At the French declaration of war against Germany on 3 September 1939, Béarn was assigned to the Force de Raid, under the command of Admiral Gensoul, along with the battleships Dunkerque and Strasbourg, three light cruisers, and eight destroyers.[15] A month later, the carrier was tasked with hunting down the German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee, as part of an immense effort to destroy the commerce raider.[16] At this time, she and Dunkerque served as the core of Force L, and along with three light cruisers, were tasked with searching the West Indies for Admiral Graf Spee.[17] During the German invasion of France in 1940, Béarn was ordered to Toulon, to load French gold bullion for transfer overseas. On 25 May, Béarn met up with the light cruisers Jeanne d'Arc and Émile Bertin at an Atlantic rendezvous, and the flotilla successfully carried Bank of France bullion reserves to Halifax, Canada.[18] Béarn then went to the U.S. East Coast to load new aircraft ordered from American manufacturers, including twenty-seven Curtiss H-75s, forty-four SBC Helldivers, twenty-five Stinson 105s, and also six Brewster Buffaloes intended for the Belgian Air Component. Before these aircraft could reach their destination, the armistice with Germany was signed, and Béarninstead sought harbor in Martinique, her crew showing little inclination to join the British in their continued fight against the Nazis.[19] She was one of a number of French ships that were effectively interned at Martinique—at U.S. insistence—to prevent their use by Germany. The carrier's aircraft were unloaded ashore, where a significant number of them were destroyed either by exposure to the elements or scavenging.[20] On 14 May 1942, the United States pressured Martinique to demilitarize the ship due to the pro-Vichy leanings of her crew.[21] On 30 June 1943, the ship was handed over to the Free French Naval Forces,[8] along with Jeanne d'Arc and Émile Bertin, which had also been interned in the Caribbean. Béarn remained in Martinique until 1944, and was then sent to the United States for a major refit.[20][22] The modernization, which lasted until March 1945, upgraded her anti-aircraft armament and optimized her for her role as an aircraft transport.[8] This role was continued after the war, as part of the French attempt to recover their possessions in Indochina.[23] Béarn arrived in Indochina in mid-October 1945, as part of a major French effort to reassert control over the colony. Among the forces committed to the region were the battleship Richelieu, the cruisers Gloire and Suffren, and several smaller warships.[24] In December 1945, Béarn transported fourteen LCAs and six LCVPs from Singapore to Vietnam, and contributed a shore party to man them in the Dinassauts.[25] After returning from Indochina, the ship was used as a barracks ship for submarines based in Toulon. Béarn remained in this duty until she was sold on 31 May 1967 to shipbreakers in Italy, where she was subsequently dismantled.[8] Over the course of her long career, Béarnnever launched her aircraft in combat.[5] THE CV IS CAN IN T6 BECAUSE HAS 40 WARPLANES & REFIT AA BORFORS & OLIERKON & REMOVE 8 SECONDARIES 155MM BUT IS VERY SLOW WITH GOOD DISPLACEMENT Name: Béarn Namesake: Béarn Builder: La Seyne Laid down: 10 January 1914 Launched: April 1920 Commissioned: May 1927 Struck: 21 March 1967 Fate: Scrapped General characteristics Type: Aircraft carrier Displacement: 22,146 long tons (22,501 t) (standard) 28,400 long tons (28,900 t) (full load) Length: 182.6 m (599 ft 1 in) (o/a) Beam: 35.2 m (115 ft 6 in) Draft: 9.3 m (30 ft 6 in) Installed power: 22,500 shp (16,800 kW) (turbines) 15,000 ihp (11,000 kW) (reciprocating engines) Propulsion: 2 × Parsons geared steam turbines 2 × reciprocating steam engines 4 × shafts Speed: 21.5 kn (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Range: 7,000 nmi (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph) Complement: 865 Armament: Original: 8 × 155 mm (6.1 in)/50 guns(8 × 1) 6 × 75 mm (3 in) anti-aircraft guns (6 × 1) 8 × 37 mm (1.5 in) anti-aircraft guns (added 1935) 16 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraftmachine guns (6 × 1) (added 1935) 4 × 550 mm (22 in) torpedo tubes After 1944 Refit: 4 × 127 mm (5.0 in)/38 cal dual-purpose guns 24 × 40 mm (1.57 in) anti-aircraft guns(6 × 4) 26 × 20 mm (0.79 in) anti-aircraftautocannons Armor: Main Belt: 8 cm (3.1 in) Flight Deck: 2.5 cm (1.0 in) Aircraft carried: 35-40 1939: 10 × Dewoitine D.373, 10 × Levasseur PL.7 and 9 × Levasseur PL.10
  9. Heard something about the German bb's being weak or instart delete blessed by cv ap bombers.I have the Roma and it's even worse.At least the German bb's have half decent aa the Roma not so much. Was targeted by a cv,he sent 2 DB sqds at me he only needed to send 1, and I was insta deleted from full hp and my crap aa didn't even shoot 1 plane down.
  10. Unnecessary Hate

    Hello, I know CVs are are not in a good place right now. Ever since i started playing its always been the same. CVs suck, blah blah blah. i get why people LOVE to hate on CV players. i get why there are so few in the que. People play this game to have fun, not to get yelled at by both sides because of just being a CV player. So my question to WG is, When will there a be a change, Any change, to where just Queing with a CV wont get you reported. I want to keep grinding out my CVs, but match after match, good or bad, i get reported over and over. Its not fun, and it will only make me stop playing them too. I enjoy playing Big E, but thats all. Im up to the Lex, but from what ive seen as a BB main, and other players, the Lex is the worst CV in the game. So im not really wanting to continue it. Today, i was in a tier 10 match in Big E, i was trying my best, when a Pink Gofer demanded AAA help. i look at the map, hes the farthest ship from combat with no red planes anywhere near him. so i ignore him, and he then reports me. GEE OH BOY. DDs ask me to spot C, i do, call out that its clear for them to cap.Then another player in a Zao then starts saying im a S*** CV player and am getting carried. While yes im not the best CV player, i was trying my best in a worst MM game i could get. I was doing what i could. I got angry and told them to **** and **** off. What more can i do? i kept the 2 red DDs spotted, and tried to attack what i could, without loosing too many planes in the process. We did end up winning. i did 99K Damage, and got told that i got carried. Yea, sure, whatever. I get what i said was wrong, and i understand getting reported for that, but when im flying tier 7 planes in a tier 10 match, what can i do? aluakbar my planes and gg no re? Whats a guy to do except stop playing CVs. I try to be a teamplayer as much as i can, but even so, a CV player cant be everywhere at once. Again like i said, im not a pro CV player, prob never will. what im looking for is the hate towards All CV players to calm down. For me, its been: Fantastic game - no Thanks for the help CV or anything of the sort. average game - reported 1 - 2 times, with no comment from anyone (usually). bad game - reported 3+ times, yelled at in chat for being " S*** CV, uninstall, LTP, Ect"... Youve all seen it. it happens every day. So, My question to WG, When will something be done to stop the hate train to CV players? Even if you have a fantastic game in a CV, there is no love for those players. And every other game its hate hate hate. All that does is make me and others want to stop. With regards to the Main line i have stopped. I still play Big E every now and then, but i always have to ask myself, is it worth it? Is it worth all the hate and reports? To me, its not. I make this post, not to sturr up drama. I make this post because i want things to change. I want to have fun playing CVs.
  11. Add More ships, More History

    Truly there are many ships that where clad in real metal that could be added to this game that in history all have or should have been added by now in my thinking. 1st we have the ship of mystery and yet battle proven and could be used to fill the US and Greece line if Greece was ever added. The U.S. Navy destroyer escort USS Eldridge (DE-173) of the Philadelphia experiment latter sold to Hellenic Navy (Greece) and became the LEON D-54 (1951–1992) 2nd The USS Franklin (CV/CVA/CVS-13, AVT-8), nicknamed "Big Ben," in all of WWII there is no greater Essex-class aircraft carriers in historical standing. Why this one has not been added is almost disgraceful. 3rd is add the aircraft carriers in to the Italian. now the Italian did have them but there are some key aircraft carriers /ships that could Bering some unique fun to the game. 3a Italian aircraft carriers: Regia Marina Ship Aquila. Worl a good look based on its build plans and history before it was scraped. - Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Aquila 3b Italian seaplane carrier: Giuseppe Miraglia, Now truly this could be a very fun ship to see in the game if done right. - Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_seaplane_carrier_Giuseppe_Miraglia 4th French, not clear why there is no integration of a French aircraft carrier perhaps based on the very real " Béarn" Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Béarn In ending it would be nice to see the lines that could be fill out with some aircraft carrier.
  12. The magical moment when not a single CV is not for sale on the store or through the doubloons. Do you think they are going to keep it this way until the CVs are reworked? (Speculations) =O
  13. (***) Midway Nerf to T9

    I read USN CV Midway fighters will be nerf to T9 next patch. So new Midway will have the following loadouts. T9 Fighters, T8 Torpedo bombers and T10 Dive Bombers So why are we still calling Midway a T10 CV when most of her planes are T8 and T9??? Why not remove CV tech trees completely if dev are struggling this much to balance the class? Just keep the premiums for both nations and introduce submarines???
  14. CV gameplay Change

    (currently at t8 IJN and USN)(Not the most articulate so bear with me)(I am thinking of these new interactions like turn based games with attack options and viewing your match up of your units vs enemy units and selecting your options) Playing CV"s as a beginner is not really fun due to the learning curve and how punishing it is to lose planes at lower tiers. Later at higher tiers and having gained experience the issue starts with who has the better match up in MM or higher skilled cpt or researched ship, etc. So my suggestion to changing the game play of cv's could be defined as a complete overhaul. Change the interaction of planes with warships by selecting attack options on warships instead of the current auto/manual drop we have that can result in a poor or 0 damage to full damage 1 shot hit. For example some interactions/attack options for strike planes would be to have an aggressive attack on the warships that grantees the most damage towards the selected target, but at the cost of losing a significant amount of strike planes. There could be a defensive attack where its an even trade of damage to target while losing half or so planes. A critical strike attack option where the attack is directed at damaging/disabling modules on a ship such as turrets, firecontrol of guns, rudder, engine, etc which is dependent on AP/HE, torp/deep torp, etc. As for warships interacting with planes, i think they should still maintain the manual aim control of their AA but depending on the direction of attack of the plane (bombers) the warship could turn broadside to expose more of their AA guns and have a more effective DPS. The warships would obviously have weak spots where AA isn't as efficient and CV"s commander could exploit that. I think the need for AA def fire should be removed because ships should generally be together to support one another and cv's should be allowed to punish players that stray too far when they lack aa for self def. The same interactions should be taken to fighter planes where they can support strike planes with attacks and provide (SLIGHT) def boost or damage boost or surviability by taking some of the damage and evening out the losses. Again they could have different attack options where they can aggressively strafe AA on the warships or maybe even historically have IJN planes have kamikazi if there is one plane left on the squad. As for fighter vs figther (and quick google search) it seems that we should give the option to the commander of dividing or creating large squadrons depending on the play style or situation on the battle. As for as the outcome of these dogfights could maybe based on who attacked first, size of squad , tier, etc. Outcomes could be also influenced by warplane historical statistics such as IJN burning up easily while USN having the more durable planes, but these could be offset depending on the attack option each commander has chosen etc. Fighter vs Fighter attack options: the regular attack should be the same as above for strike planes where an equally moderate damage done to target while losing half or so planes. An aggressive attack on enemy target that can potentially result in high damage to target, but offset by RNG maybe? and have a chance to miss and get punished as a result. If fighters have divided in smaller squads we can maintain the current interaction of having one squad preoccupy enemy target and having another ally squad come in with a regular attack, offensive attack, or defensive attack on maintain enemy planes from main squad, but not dealing much damage. Some issues that need to be addressed is how can balance cv's pushing their planes to caps to intercept dd's and being blow up immediately due to being singled out. The actions chosen for each squad need to be smooth and not clunky, but at the same time showing clearly the possible outcome of your choice. (Probably some other balances i cant think of) (not very active on the forums but wanted to pitch in) Some miscellaneous notes: allow the ability for commanders to unite smaller squads such as strike planes so we dont have to waste planes or divide still healthy squads to allow for more versatility. Show range indicator from selected squad to selected enemy target so savvy cv commanders can maintain their planes away from their AA range Allow to cancel departures or landings of planes.. Sometimes you accidentally click the wrong squad and end up choosing a squad of fighters instead of bombers so you can kill that sneaky dd coming behind you
  15. Good morning! Last week you may recall I posted a “2017 Year of the CV” Survey Part 1. That survey covered general community feedback on the changes WG implemented last year. Thank you to the over 250 respondents who took the time to fill out that survey, and especially to those who gave feedback on the survey itself! This is Part 2 (of 2), which covers balance, UI, and more, to improve CV play for both CVs and surface ships alike. I would greatly appreciate your help in gauging community feedback. Please click here for Survey Part 2. This survey may take a bit longer to finish than Part 1, I encourage you to take your time when filling it out. This survey isn't limited to CV players (in fact, there is one short section for non-CV players). I’ve also made improvements based on feedback from the last survey, and decided to make most of the questions optional to answer. If a question doesn’t apply to you, or the questions and/or its answers are unsatisfactory, you may skip the question. (This makes it a pretty fast survey for non-CV players!) There’s also a comment section at the end if you’d like to add anything else. Thanks again to Reddit user /u/danorou for reviewing prior to release, and to my good friend leyland1989 for data analysis tips. If you have any questions or feedback regarding the survey, feel free to comment below or send me a PM. Thanks again for your time and interest. The results of both surveys will be posted later this month. Cheers!
  16. I think a few ideas could potentially be adapted from EVE Online game play specifically, from EVE's carriers and command ships, which have been very successful for carrier gameplay historically in that game. 1 - Keep the RTS game-style. 2 - Remove "Manual" drop/strafe from all nations/planes (hear me out). 3 - In the load-out screen, add multiple styles of each plane type for additional customization (fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers--models could even be brought in from World of Planes). These type differences would each possess a unique ability and must be selected at the loadout screen before a match, only able to possess one style of each plane type. 4 - To replace the manual and strafe mechanics give each plane type a unique ability or two with a long CD. If you click the target the plane will dogfight, the dive bombers/torpedo bombers will drop; however, if you use your unique ability for that plane they will do perform a unique action for that plane or type of plane. Potential examples (only one of each plane style could be preselected for each match in the loadout screen): Dive Bombers: - High Altitude Bombers: Have these bombers have a smaller field of vision and slightly lower health by default. Using the special ability allows bombers to "fly at high altitude" (make them invulnerable for X seconds). During high altitude, their range of vision would increase dramatically, while only able to loiter. This helps the destroyer scouting issue. - Radar Bombers: Because removing manual drop eliminates the ability to drop on smoke, Radar Bombers would be able to identify where a ship in smoke is and focus it's drop pattern (like a Kaga drop pattern). This would not grant vision to the entire team. - Etc. Torpedo Bombers: - Formation Torpedo Bombers: Torpedo Bombers use a unique torpedo spread on a long cooldown in the fight. - Long Drop Torpedo Bombers: Torpedo range is greatly extended for a short time. (This helps carrier's avoid AA but gives the enemy more time to maneuver). - Etc. Fighters: - High Speed Fighters: Using unique ability greatly increases fighter speed for ~20 seconds and requires a very long cooldown, ~2-3 minutes. - Barrage Fighters: This unique ability is functionally the same as strafe, imposing a long cooldown on that ability. - Etc. 5 - Finally, you could give the CV "Command Ship Bonuses" to the friendly team within a specific range tactically (think of carrier bonuses during the Halloween event). Examples (just a few): - Minus 4% dispersion for X seconds. - Increased concealment for X seconds - Increased spotting for X seconds - Fire prevention added to friendly's for X Seconds (looking at you English) - Increased AA defense for X Seconds - Etc. In Summary: Keeping long time CV's happy: - Keep the RTS gameplay. - More plane options and more loadout options I.E. More customization. Lowering the skill threshold for new players: - Remove all Manual drops and strafes. - Add one or two "unique" abilities to planes. - Better Team play. Other: In-game name: Rikan
  17. How many battles did you play to deal 75k damage using CVs in the PTS?
  18. Good morning! As you might know, last year was supposed to be the "year of the CV". Some of the changes were: Revamped control interface; alternative mouse controls Commander skills rework Removal of manual attack from T4, T5 CVs USN CV rework, addition of AP DBs Two released premium CVs: Kaga, Enterprise Addition of strafe-out I would greatly appreciate your help in gauging community feedback. Please click here to fill out Part 1 of the survey. There are a lot of questions, so I've decided to split the survey into two halves. This week's survey covers general CV balance/feedback, and specific CVs. The survey will be active for one week, after which I'll post the second half. Thanks to Danorou from Reddit for early feedback! If you have any questions or feedback regarding the survey, feel free to comment below or send me a PM. Thanks again for your time and interest, and see you next week!
  19. What tier 4 skill should I pick for my commander? air supremacy is a core skill to have? Thanks~
  20. Long story short, what tier 4 skill should I pick up for my tier VI carrier Ryoujo? Thanks~
  21. CV Captains know they can move their ships right? How many times does a CV have to deal with an enemy DD that gets a little bit too friendly alone because they refused to move their ship before they realize there's an easy solution to the problem? I know i'm just venting some of my frustration out here, but really guys? Youre gonna refuse to just tap W at the beginning of the match, before your fighters even come off cooldown to launch, and then you have the audacity to crapbricks at your team when a DD rolls around in spawn looking for a free kill and your tasty hull is sitting there? Sorry mate, but i'm not the one who needs to be put on blast for you not rotating with the team. We're all here at the points trying to cap them or kill the enemy, idk why you're still all the way back there sucking your toes for no reason. Even moving forward and getting closer is beneficial to you and the team! You rotate away from the easy pickings zone, get a little closer to the fight and you cut precious seconds off the time that your planes have to make when returning to your ship! Youre closer to the group, safer, youre not as easy to predict your location, AND youre able to be useful to the fight. It's literally a plus for everyone to just move from spawn and try to keep around the team as much as you can. Look, Im not asking you to be up with the cruisers or get in BB firing range. That's too close to the fight. But what I'm humbly requesting is that you try to micromanage your ship and just try to keep close enough for us to protect you AND win the match, because we cant to both when youre sitting afk in the spawn area because you couldnt be asked to move a little bit. Dont put the rest of the team on blast because you dont know how to use the W key. video-1517101013.mp4
  22. Buenas muchachos, Clan ARA se encuentra en la búsqueda de jugadores de CV en especial para conformar equipo estable para los torneos de Supremacy League y otros torneos que puedan surgir. Requisitos poseer CVs de tier 9-10 y microfono para comunicarnos mediante Discord. Comunicarse a los siguientes IDs: Terrakov Gurumendocino motitosalvaje Chisthofer
  23. Japanese Ship Names

    You may have seen this before but I thought it was pretty interesting. It explains the "meaning" of many Japanese ship names. http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnnames.htm
  24. Just wondering if the flooding bonus from this signal (+15%) applies to torpedo bombers or is it just for ship-launched torpedoes.... Thanks! <S!> War
  25. Carriers in Clan Battles

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