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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 322 results

  1. I had a thought and may be way off base here but adding "Line of Mines". The mines would be strung together and dropped by ship. The would have similar damage as CV Torps. Low Yield but painful and can cause flooding. Meant to protect areas ... Tactics- - Protecting the approach to a CV ... keeping DDs at a safer distance. - Protecting a Cap after capping. - Interrupt the progress of a pursuing ship. - steering a ship into a "kill zone" or Open Territory. Practically, You allow the ship commander to choose Depth Charges, Air Strike, or Mine Field. Cant imagine the animation would be challenging but I there wouldn't be many mechanics involved. To be fair, the mines would be absolute, they would damage both friendly and enemy. ... which would tactically make things interesting and fun. *The new line of Support CVs could even be included to have air craft drop a mine line. *Mine field would only be active for a set amount of time ... probably 1:30 seems fair. *Mine line would be 3 to 6 mine line depending on tier. Just a thought. Feel free to add ideas or push up to Devs.
  2. 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!
  3. 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.
  4. Hello folks, Having played as and against subs, and being a submarine fanatic, I have seen that the submarines are currently implemented poorly. The matches I play as subs are either 150k+ dmg matches where you butcher a helpless enemy team, or frustrating 0 dmg insta-deaths where you get annihilated by swarms of depth charge bombers. The current implementation has serious problems, and much of the community would rather bandwagon on the hate-train against subs opposed to actually offering solutions that satisfy everyone. I intend here to provide a conclusive solution that will satisfy all players, submarine enjoyer and otherwise. The solution to submarines is as follows: 1: Remove homing torpedoes and depth charge planes. Reasoning: Homing torpedoes drag the skill floor of submarines way too low, and allow subs to strike targets they definitely shouldn't be. For example, these homing torpedoes can counter DDs/cruisers sitting in smoke, submarines even partially countering DDs is extremely silly. As for depth charge planes; this means that BBs become the primary counters to submarines, I can definitely testify to this from personal experience. The design of submarines should be focused on how they fit into the game as a whole, BBs countering subs better than DDs is insane. DDs should be the primary counter to submarines, more on this later. All classes of ship should have access to simple depth charges, with DDs possessing the best (greatest quantity of depth charges released). 2: Refocus the purpose of submarines to be anti-CV. Reasoning: CVs are known for playing an extremely safe, passive playstyle with respect to their ships positioning and movement. They currently have no counter, submarines can fill this void. Giving submarines increased damage, even a chance to land citadel torpedoes against CVs ONLY. This increased damage potential will motivate many submarines to seek out CVs. People will often go where their most reliable way to get damage and citadel ribbons is, this is how you can motivate anti-CV play. 3: Allow nuance in play for submarines by changing how sonar works. The submarine should draw inspiration from the Spy from Team Fortress 2, a backline assassin with a few distinct methods of play, either super stealthy but only able to harass a few (albeit more reliable) backline targets, or super high risk high reward (less stealthy). Here is what I mean, the sonar ping and hydrophone consumable should both be removed in favor of a toggleable sonar. When the sonar is turned off, you are blind, but are far harder to detect, only able to see other submarines at extremely close range (where you can hear their propellers). This allows for a low-risk way for the sub player to sneak past the frontline and sneak to the backline where its intended targets are, CVs and sniper BBs. The alternative would be to turn on the sonar which would reveal the submarine to other submarines underwater from a significant distance (5-10 km depending on concealment). This offers a higher risk, high reward style of play, with the sonar having a long range detection of underwater ships, while a shorter range (~75% of underwater) detection of surface ships. The hydroacoustic search consumable should only find submarines who either have their sonars on, or are extremely close (where the propellers can be heard by the hydroacoustic instruments). 4: Change how submarine spotting works. When a submarine spots another submarine currently, if both of the subs are near the frontline, they both get descended upon by tons of depth charge bombers and often both die before they can even kill one another. After my suggested changes, the subs will now be able to duel properly if they so choose to by turning on their sonars. However a submarine being a hard to spot machine itself, it being able to spot everything better than a DD makes no sense. So rather instead of a sub being able to spot enemy ships with its sonar, it instead only spots the ships for itself (and possibly for friendly submarines). If the sub is at periscope depth or the surface, the spotting functions as normal, but comes with the downside that it is detectable by nearby surface ships. 5: Revert the dive timer back to the battery. This is a no-brainer, simply make the sonar consume battery when it is on. This would make submarine duels extremely interesting games of battery management, juking/3D positioning, and leading torpedo shots. I suggest allowing submarine torpedoes to arm much sooner, allowing for closer knife-fights underwater. 6: Make the different depths matter, and partially revert the diving ability. The 60m depth should make the submarine extremely hard to spot, and reduce/eliminate the damage from depth charges. The downside of this would be purely the agility of the torpedoes themselves. Torpedoes can only rise so quickly, so this would significantly limit the subs ability to deal with close range targets, and without guided torpedoes the long range targets are much harder to hit. This balances itself out. The periscope depth should, like a few submarine updates prior, allow for the recharge of the battery. As for the diving ability, to prevent abuse it is good to leave the surface and the periscope depths as preset depths where you cant feather in between periscope depth and just below it, however below a certain depth the diving/ascent shouldn't be constrained by preset depths, only having a maximum depth which can vary by the submarine (this wont be too much of a problem in submarine duels if my point #8 is added). 7: Reassert the DDs place as the submarine counter. DDs (and light cruisers to a lesser extent) should possess innate vertical sonar, giving a cylinder of detection directly below itself, perhaps about 200m in radius. This, coupled with my change to spotting, means that if your friendly submarine spots an enemy sub, your DDs will know the general area to start searching and should be able to find the sub quickly. This combined with being able to release a long chain of depth charges should scare many subs away from trying to meddle with the frontline, as usual they must take a high risk for the potential of a high reward. 8: (New mechanic) Allow for torpedoes to be aimed both horizontally AND vertically. This would simply add another axis to being able to launch torpedoes, this is so sub vs sub fights can allow for leading shots in all 3 axes of movement, since subs can juke by changing their depth. As stated previously torpedoes are only able to ascend/descend so fast, limiting the ability for subs to strike at surface ships from too deep down. I am convinced that submarines can be a fun addition to the game, where they also improve the health of the game by discouraging unfun playstyles. Should my changes be implemented, CVs will no longer be able to feel "safe" every single match, and be able to just sit in the back and send their planes out. This will force team coordination on the part of the CV (definitely a good thing), as should the CV wander too far away from friendly ships, they will easily fall prey to a sub. As a person who also enjoys CVs, I hate seeing CVs that just sit back and play it super safe all game. CVs should move up and act more as a part of a battlegroup. This to me is the most enjoyable way to play as and against CVs, as it gives a chance for more daring players to attempt to pierce the battlegroup and strike the CV. I believe that subs can definitely function as a counter to the CV/sniper-heavy meta we've been seeing for a while. Subs will make the backline an extremely dangerous place to be, and encourage more active play on all parts. Thanks for reading my ten thousand leagues of text.
  5. Question in title. Everyone is free to discuss.
  6. CV RTS was what made the most sense in wow. Of course the skill in them made a brutal difference. A common player was useless, different than today.. Apart from facing some CV with 2 squads of torpedoes at the same time doing the famous X blow that honestly if this happens today.. players would explode from complaining so much on the forum. RTS wasn't a problem it was a bit unbalanced in my opinion. They could refine you. I particularly hated those damn planes shooting all my planes as I passed. But it was a skill that the more experienced used and destroyed the novices. If it was so OP it could have been removed for example.. and etc.. CVS is sloppy, usually there's always a nerf somewhere. The rockets were a fatal blow.. now a DD got too close.. I only depend on bombs that honestly.. these bombs nowadays the ability to hit a target makes me laugh with rage. And unfortunately don't expect much from this forum. Almost everyone hates CVs.
  7. Jonas_Brent

    Carriers in general

    The worst thing World of Warships did was screw the HELL out of CVs. They SUCK now. They're difficult to play and impossible to grind, especially in COOP. Somehow it seems WoWs has given tier X CVs some extra special power that they can't EVER miss their targets, yet players hit a ship time after time, never missing, finally killing a Bismarck, and that is all they have to say for themselves. COOP is impossible, you can't get more than two or three good strikes in, usually with the competition targets explode before your ordinance ever reaches the targets or is even launched. Unless you take the CV right in to battle, you never do well. Only lasting the longest by a long shot and therefor being the last to die and a team loss, can they have enough sorties in random to get any decent amount of XP. I do not believe WoWs morons who had anything to do with this CV rework ever tried to grind a tier IV up to tier X. I can't even imagine that life-long and infuriating journey. Worse is that with all the negative comments, they stand by it and say it's the "best they can do" .. LIARS. Try harder and make something worth while and fun for both the CV players and those shooting down planes. IDIOTS.
  8. the most frustrating thing about CVs is that they can sit at the back of the map, get free damage, then spot the entire team all with one squadron. I would like to propose that plains be given a fuel meter. This would cause CVs to play farther up or risk losing an entire squadron if they sit to far back and they run out of fuel, and so they can only harass on small section of the map
  9. Mordt

    Insane CV vs CV fight

    Here's the replay. 20220324_204209_PGSA106-Weser_05_Ring.wowsreplay Any advice welcome.
  10. As said in the title. I really miss the Essex and Independence class.
  11. With support carriers being announced and the general displeasure the playerbase feels about being picked on by CVs I got an idea for a change. While more conceptual than ironed out, I think it has some potential. That is - a mechanic to discourage repeatedly striking the same target. I’d call it “Alertness”. For every second you have a priority sector active against planes your AA gets a cumulative strength increase. Similar to the special battle commands the Hannover and Satsuma have. If you AA hasn’t been active and “priority sectored” in a few minutes the bonus will start to tick down. Ships with defensive AA can give this an instant boost to 1/3rd its max upon activation. Maybe a little overkill, but if you have been struck by a CV 3 times in a row, and had your priority sector active against the planes all 3 times you unlock aa special battle command to instantly shoot down several planes. Unsure if it would be fair or not to let the CV see how much this “Alertness” bar is progressed on enemy ships or not. It could be similar to how you can see battery levels for submarines. If it was not visible and there are multiple carriers it would be a bit unfair for the other CV to be punished for the actions of their ally. You would also be able to slightly build your “Alertness” by priority sectoring Fighters/Air Strikes/ Depth Charge Bombers. A real alert captain could keep this bonus active without even having the CV strike them. This could also be an issue in smaller battles (like ranked), eg. 5v5 or 7v7. But I would argue that carriers shouldn’t be allowed in those smaller battle types to begin with. I also understand that this is a net nerf to carriers, but I think it is warranted. CVs should be considered a high-skill level class. A skilled CV player would be able to mitigate this change. And, attentive captains on the receiving end of attacks would appreciate a tool to defend themselves. A net win in my books.
  12. Darkshadow86

    CV: HAND OF GOD BUILD

    Good day CV Community! It's your spokesman for all CV things related, and I'm here to bring you a build that is sure to blow any enemy ship out of the water. Do you ever have that feeling, "Dang, it is so hard to hit DD(s) after this CV rework." If that's the case, you're in luck, because I know a build that will cure what ails you. Some of you may have already discovered the build, but for you folk that are new, and still have trouble smack a DD that wants to figure skate in the water, well, then your problems are now solved. As you all know, this is the commander skill, selection board. Here you can select the skills you want for your ship commander. Each skill has a predetermined number of required points needed to make the selected skill active. If you want to make a skill called Engine Techie active, you need for your commander to have 1 skill point available for use. Now, let's get into the fun part of this, the build. Before that, a quick note: If you don't have a commander who has ten available skill points, you can purchase one in the armory for a low quantity of coal(a type of in-game currency). For the sake of making this build more commonly acquirable I'll limit the first section to 10 commander points. Hand of God Build 1 Air Supremacy 6 Torpedo Bomber Swift Fish Improved Engines 3 Sight Stabilization 10 Total Here is what you gain from each individual skill. Air Supremacy -5% aircraft restoration time. Torpedo Bomber -10% torpedo arming distance. Swift Fish +5% to torpedo speed. Improved Engines +2.5% aircraft squadron speed. Sight Stabilization +7.5% aiming speed. The reason you want this build is that it allows for faster targeting speeding, which means less damage you received from flak while you aim or attack the target. The target will get less time to react or turn their hull as you quickly blitz them and deal a heaven's worth a punishment. I was going to make more builds, but I don't know the player average for the number of commander skills points most have, and I wouldn't want to create a build that most people can't obtain. Summarization time: The goal of this Build: Become the enemy that surface ships will fear with your godly accuracy, and the heavy damage you will rain upon them. Pros and Cons: Pros Cons Quick damage Your planes won't be as tanky in comparison to other builds. Your enemies will fear you and hide behind islands all game. Your enemies will fear you and hide behind islands all game. This will greatly raise your average damage dealt per game. You may become overreliant on the quick aiming. (You decide) (You decide) You're playing the best class in-game. Enemies will hate you for existing, knowing you can delete them in a minute. Alright CV Community, I hope this build helps you, and I will happily receive, thoughts, constructive feedback, and any alternations you feel that will truly make this a HAND OF GOD BUILD. Have a wonderful day everyone.
  13. First off, let me start by saying that I am 2015 WoWs player and a 2009 WOT player, a Navy Veteran(both ship and squadron), a avid fan of history and a gamer that never posts in the forums. The ISSUE: - The current play style for CVs in WoWs is a fall from grace from what it used to be. It can be better it should be better. The SOLUTION: - Bring back the old school real time strategy that CVs incorporated. - Implement realistic turn angles of attack. - Buff AA and increase the penalty for unsafe approaches. The ARGUMENT: - I would like to believe that this game follows some historical record and account, hence the ships history being posted in game. History shows that carriers used multiple squadrons, attack angle and formations. It`s aviation doctrine. - In the life of carriers, they rarely fight alone.. it was usually two or more together. Put two carriers to a game, increase the rewards for shooting down planes. This would stress the importance for TEAMPLAY and strategy. Each ship has roles to play. - Will I chase a submarine for spotting and not be able to defend myself from an attacking DD? The old school and current play style needs to be merged. Does the game even read these posts? Am I the only one here asking for a change?
  14. I served aboard the beast of the east when she was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan for 2 years. quite a good time in my life just 18 and the world at my feet. visited some 20 different countries during that span How many others are seeing the old duty station in this game.
  15. Darkshadow86

    Where is my Super CV?

    Before I begin, I'm aware of the stigmatism that CV players cause others, that they are the primary deciders of who wins and who loses. But, of course, they aren't, so before someone gets all defensive about jets being in-game and starts getting excited, relax; DDs are the ship class you should be worried about their influential presence (which some CVs can delete with a glance). Although, I won't deny that CVs with access to jets have the capabilities of a single Kryptonian vs. a league of multiple batmen. Or a gaggle of dysfunctioning robbers that can quickly steal a victory from your grasp if you aren't constantly aware of your situation or lack map awareness like a Battleship player learning to play and not hiding behind the closest mountainous island in their vicinity. How do I gain one of these mighty beauties? On the login patch page, it states: "Supercarriers, as well as the other superships, will be available for rent from recurring random bundles in the Armory. The contents of those bundles will change. One bundle that holds all the superships will be replaced by two bundles. Each of them will include a cruiser, destroyer, battleship, and aircraft carrier. Does that mean it works like subs to where I can get access to the super CVs every day? Or is it a situation where I need to buy a bundle pack to play it? Preferably I'd rather have this ship be researchable. I truly don't feel like jumping through mission hoops to access the next tier. Hopefully, this isn't like that, "You can win a free ship, but you must participate in the shipbuilding mission." Off-topic: But I do recall when I asked for jet CVs, and people were like, "It's never going to happen!" "You're dreaming" "I'll have what you're having" etc etc. Now, look where we're today. Oh, and my title is a reference to the incredible with the "Where is my super suit scene," that I love so much. I'm not actually demanding for my own super CV to just appear. I felt I needed to clarify that since people can act pedantic.
  16. I just played my first game in a CV with the new change from paying for planes lost to cost of ammo resupply. I play one co-op game in the Kaga. Only used torpedo planes. Lost 30 planes. That would have cost me 700 credits per plane, 21,000 total in lost planes. The current cost was for the 28 torpedoes I dropped, the cost was only 4,083 credits (that's 145.82 credits per torp). That's a strange number since it doesn't divide equally into the 28 torps. Does clan bonus count for ammo resupply? Right now the costs are much better, at least for the Kaga. I'll add the costs for other CVs as I play them. If you have numbers of your own to add, please do. I think @iDuckman might be interested in these numbers for the Wiki.
  17. CV e quase IMPOSIVEL DE USAR OS MISSEIS... Apos a atualizacao! 0.10.5 16/06/2021 Aeronaves de Ataque dos porta avioes, percebi tambem a piora da velocidade, ficou 50% mais lento ao mover.... E quase impossivel em acerta um navio, o tempo de disparo e muito lento.. temos que imaginar 4 a 5 sec antes? Jogo esta com Bug... 4 a 5 sec para disparar...???? Vao consertar o jogo.. Alem disto os avioes firam lentos, muito lentos, .... ficaram muito lentos! Alguem tem ideia como se usa agora os avioes de ataque? meu nivel e 20... virei noob do jogo ? O para de usar os CV.... so da pra usar os torpedos que 60% falham se soltar muito proximo do alvo, e do bombareiro nem se fala cai fora do alvo 50%. Ateciosamente Boss
  18. This will be anecdotal for sure, AND A TOTAL RANT at why I hate myself for coming back to the game. by no means am i a good CV player, I am a BB, CA main, but one of the reasons i hate using CV is that the autopilot is hot garbage. It absolutely sucks. what makes it terrible for CV is that if your team is obviously losing one flank and you have to get the hell out of there you can't rely on autopilot to do it with any reliably accuracy or speed it happens all the time. to make turns in autopilot it slows down regardless of how much room and most a lot of the time has the ship reverse to better complete the assigned turn with better clearance, this is a bane for CV players who are on the run they either have maneuver the ship manually to get away with some expedience or leave it to autopilot while using their squadrons, which will inevitably leave their ship discovered because of the stupidity or ineptitude of the autopilot mechanic. Case in point: I was on the Shards map recently, I was playing the T6 German CV, and my team had lost the SW flank and I was making my way north, i have secondary build so i can get close and dirty if i have no other options, i did so at the northern cap taking out a dd with my secondaries and a cruiser with a combo of my secondaries aircraft and a friendly battleship. After those ships were destroyed I set my autopilot to take me out of the cap to the northern corner and out to the east to escape the last 2 enemy bb approaching. (at this point it was 3 vs. 2, we had a bis a t-61 and i was in the loewenhardt, they had a Massachusetts left & T7 Italian BB.) While i plotted the course to get me the hell out of there, the bis went to engage the enemy and the t61 followed them and got the middle cap while i finished taking the north cap. my autopilot stops me 4 times to go into reverse to better complete the turns,(a couple of times i took control of the ship to save my skin) while I am piloting to support my teammates. the enemies sink the bis and come after me. me and our DD sink the FC and prevent him from taking our cap, however, the mass killed me during this time, ONLY because the autopilot is completely useless. hence i think this is a general mechanic that WG can fix that would benefit all players, but will mostly benefit CV players. I am saying if the autopilot was semi-competent i would've gotten away and wouldn't have been in their spotting range. This has happened to me a few times and its really chaffing me the wrong way. Legend: Left Pic: shown path to autopilot with multipe course points given, Right pic: My actual path with the Green X's representing each time the autopilot slowed me down & reversed to readjust course. (last is my sunk position, i took command and the steering again and the 1st, 2nd at 3rd points to fix my course and run away faster.) when the enemy DD & CA are sunk im almost just before the First Green X, all the others starting positions are at about the same time White X: enemy CA/DD sunk positions RED: Friendly positions/course Blue: Enemy Positions/course Green: ME & STUPID AUTO PILOT
  19. Introducción Para empezar, este tema no pretende generar controversias entre los jugadores de las distintas clases. Al contrario, el objetivo de este post es reunir diferentes opiniones y puntos de vista que ayuden a corregir las mecánicas y la influencia de los portaaviones en las partidas; especialmente, de aquellos jugadores más experimentados del juego competitivo. Si bien el post no está en inglés, invito a toda la comunidad del habla hispana, para que puedan aportar sus experiencias en este tema. Por otra parte, se preguntarán ¿por qué quiero que me gustaría que sean escuchados con mayor atención los jugadores con bastante conocimiento competitivo en el juego y no los jugadores casuales? Según mi punto de vista, la respuesta es simple y paso a explicarla. Para competir en las ligas mayores como la Liga Tifón y la Liga Huracán, los diversos jugadores requieren dominar ciertos aspectos de la batalla que los jugadores regulares o casuales no han incorporado aún a su estilo de juego; en otras palabras, la competencia demanda diferentes estrategias, combinaciones de barcos, distribución de puntos de comandantes; además de posicionamientos correctos, momentos de sincronización o timing y muchas otras variantes, que se pueden dar a conocer en partidas de la alta competencia. No obstante, todos son bienvenidos a replicar este asunto. Recordando al obsoleto RTS CV Antes de nada, recordemos al famoso modo RTS (Real-Time Strategy) de los CV, que se caracterizaba, principalmente, por tener una perspectiva de la partida completamente diferente al resto de las otras clases de barcos; una visión aérea de la totalidad del mapa en modo estratégico. Entre otras particularidades se encontraban los siguientes factores: Control de múltiples escuadrones; Daño alfa muy elevado por cada ataque; Sincronización de ataques simultáneos; Defensa manual y en seguimiento mediante fighters; La dificultad aumentaba proporcionalmente con cada tier; Gran diferencia de habilidades entre jugadores de portaaviones. En efecto, en esta vieja modalidad RTS, los portaaviones eran más difíciles de controlar y su curva de aprendizaje no era amigable. Asimismo, los puntos anteriormente mencionados, si bien le otorgaban al jugador una experiencia más realista en cuanto a la gestión de un portaaviones, resultaron ser muy negativos en lo que respecta a la jugabilidad. Por consiguiente, no era habitual encontrar portaaviones en una partida y, en definitiva, la clase era poco popular. Las estadísticas, de una baja cantidad de usuarios que utilizaran portaaviones en una partida, alentaron, durante un tiempo, una reelaboración de las mecánicas de la clase. En consecuencia, a partir de la actualización 0.8.0, llegó una nueva dinámica de juego de los portaaviones. Los nuevos portaaviones En los inicios del 2019, WG retiró el RTS de los portaaviones por un estilo de juego mucho más dinámico. Esto alentó a que nuevos jugadores se animaran a utilizar esta clase que, de alguna manera, estaba olvidada. Debido a su aumento de popularidad, actualmente, encontramos portaaviones en las partidas de manera muy frecuente. Por lo cual, independientemente de la experiencia de cada jugador, la clase tiene una gran influencia en la partida que no puede pasar desapercibida. Y lo redacté en negrita porque su impacto es muy visible ya que, las restantes clases, adoptan diferentes movimientos ante la presencia de un portaaviones en una partida. ¡Y mejor ni hablemos de cuando hay 2 por equipo en una misma partida! xD Influencias del portaaviones en una partida Quizás para los que no estén muy interiorizados en este tema o, peor aún, aquellos que aún no interpretan al juego de manera global, se cuestionarán: ¿de qué manera un portaaviones repercute en una partida? Pues, revisémoslo juntos. No arriesga puntos de vida o hit points (HP) Si bien este punto es algo retórico y discutible, la gran mayoría de los jugadores de portaaviones, por lo general, tienen tendencia a jugar toda la partida en los extremos del mapa, por detrás de la línea de defensa dispuesta por la formación de barcos aliada. Por tanto, la probabilidad de su detección mediante superficie o por la aviación enemiga es muy baja; en consecuencia, el riesgo de que sufra daño directamente por otros barcos es escasa. Rango operativo de aviación ilimitado A diferencia de las demás clases, que están limitadas por un rango máximo en sus baterías principales, en sus baterías secundarias o en sus torpedos, la aviación posee la capacidad de operar por todo el mapa, sin restricciones de distancia, independientemente de la posición del portaaviones siendo, de esta manera, una clase que puede prestar servicio en diversos lugares del mapa y en cualquier momento de la partida. Reconocimiento de la flota enemiga El traslado en toda la extensión del mapa le otorga, a la aviación del portaaviones, la capacidad revelar las posiciones enemigas siempre que los aviones entren en el rango de detección por aire de los barcos. Sin dudas alguna, es el “mejor armamento” de un portaaviones. Competencia para ejecutar ataques cruzados En relación con los barcos de superficie, en cada una de las partidas y, particularmente, en Batallas por Rango o en Batallas de Clanes, el posicionamiento está orientado a lograr el mayor rendimiento posible en la partida, sin necesidad de comprometer sus debilidades. En cuanto a la aviación de los portaaviones, su maniobrabilidad y el rango operativo ilimitado le permite ejecutar ataques desde los ángulos más débiles de los barcos enemigos como, por ejemplo, efectuar maniobras de ataques utilizando las islas para bloquear el daño AA de medio y largo alcance, hasta frenar el avance oportuno de un push con torpedos en un lateral del barco. Este tipo de accionar, que puede ser aplicado en cualquier lugar y momento de la partida, le otorga al portaaviones la capacidad de desasir formaciones enemigas. Restablecer puntos o zonas de captura fácilmente La suma de puntaje del equipo, mediante la captura y la conservación de puntos o zonas estratégicas, es un factor determinante para trazar el camino hacia la victoria en cualquier partida. La obtención de éstas requiere que los barcos ingresen al territorio de dichas zonas durante un tiempo determinado, sin recibir daño, para efectivizar la misma. Por lo que se refiere a la aviación de los portaaviones, al tener un rango operativo bastante extenso, con diversas combinaciones de armamento con diferentes ángulos de ataque y, sumado a la capacidad de reconocimiento; le confieren, potencialmente, la facultad de restablecer puntos o zonas de captura con mucha facilidad. Soporte aéreo efectivo Por un lado y a diferencia del modo RTS, en el nuevo concepto de portaaviones, los cazas son un consumible y pueden ser llamados a la batalla por el jugador cuando sea necesario. Además, a partir de la actualización 0.10.0, la actualización de habilidades de los comandantes trajo consigo nuevas habilidades especiales para portaaviones que mejoran las características de los cazas. Por otro lado, el llamado de cazas en lugares estratégicos y sincronizados con el posicionamiento y movimiento de los barcos aliados, posibilitan al portaaviones el bloqueo efectivo del avance y de los ataques de la aviación enemiga. De esta manera, en su máximo resplandor, un jugador de portaaviones puede anular y dominar la presencia del portaaviones enemigo en la partida. Control y dominio total del mapa En consecuencia, a los puntos anteriormente mencionados, asociados a una curva de aprendizaje y a una jugabilidad más amigable, un jugador de portaaviones experimentado, a través de diferentes modos de ataque y/o soportes sincronizados a barcos específicos, puede lograr una supremacía aérea en toda la extensión del mapa. En resumen, cuando el portaaviones interpreta de manera precisa la distribución, la posición y el tipo de barco del enemigo y aliado, posiblemente su reacción en consecuencia le permitirá, como portaaviones, ejercer su influencia en toda la partida, a través de un control y dominio total; una característica propia de esta clase. Puntos de discusión INTERACCIÓN CV VS AA IA (¿NO PLAYER vs PLAYER?) Por lo que se refiere al armamento antiaéreo, uno de los comentarios más frecuente, luego del rework, es el siguiente “las AA antes eran manuales y ahora ya no lo son” y, realmente, es un mal concepto. Las AA dentro del juego, al igual que las baterías secundarias, funcionan de manera automática controladas por la IA (Inteligencia Artificial). En el caso de las AA del modo RTS, uno podía seleccionar a uno de los múltiples escuadrones que atacaban a nuestro barco, dirigiendo toda la artillería hacia un escuadrón en específico, pero nunca la controlábamos, ya que el barco las disparaba de manera involuntaria hacia el grupo aéreo seleccionado. Por el contrario, a diferencia de las baterías principales o de los torpedos, donde los diferentes jugadores pueden manifestar sus habilidades entre sí durante una batalla, la interrelación entre los jugadores de la aviación del portaaviones y de otras clases, NO ES DIRECTA. En otras palabras, el jugador de portaaviones, a través de la aviación, se enfrenta a la defensa aérea dominada por la IA del barco enemigo y no al jugador en sí mismo. De esta manera, podemos observar que no hay un duelo de habilidades entre la aviación y la defensa aérea del barco de superficie. Por último, los jugadores solamente pueden modificar el equipamiento y las habilidades del comandante (además de los consumibles y la prioridad de sector) de su nave para potenciar la eficiencia de los montajes AA controladas por la IA; pero NUNCA podrá controlarlas manualmente. De esta manera, por ejemplo, el jugador de crucero no puede interactuar directamente con la aviación del jugador de portaaviones. Puesto que las AA estén controladas por un IA y no por el jugador de manera directa, probablemente, debe tener como objetivo “ahorrar preocupaciones” o “evitar mecánicas adicionales” para que el jugador de superficie priorice su interacción contra otro barco de superficie, mientras que la AA hace su trabajo de manera independiente; pero todo este último párrafo es una suposición mía y es totalmente discutible. INTERACCIÓN DD VS CV En mi opinión, la interacción entre jugadores más difícil de balancear. Desde la introducción de cruceros con radares de largo alcance, sumado al aumento de popularidad del portaaviones, el trabajo de los destructores se fue dificultando con el tiempo. En efecto, estos últimos se han convertido en la punta de la lanza de todo equipo debido a que, entre otras cosas, pueden capturar puntos estratégicos con mayor facilidad, proporcionar coberturas a los aliados mediante cortinas de humo, demorar avances agresivos de los enemigos mediante el lanzamiento efectivo de torpedos, y por último (y lo más importante), proporcionar inteligencia y revelar la posición enemiga gracias a sus buenos parámetros de ocultamiento. Como he mencionado anteriormente, en la sección de Influencias del portaaviones en una partida, la mecánica de reconocimiento proporcionada por la aviación del portaaviones es, sin duda alguna, el “mejor armamento” de un portaaviones. Esto se debe a que el impacto de esta mecánica del juego es imposible de bloquear, excepto con pantallas de humo, pero sólo de manera transitoria. Y sí, lo mencione como transitoria porque, por ejemplo, el ocultamiento del destructor mediante humo puede ser, luego del reconocimiento provisto por la aviación, vencido por la activación de un radar con alcance suficiente para hacer retroceder, e incluso, obligar al destructor a retirarse de la posición de su humo exponiéndolo, nuevamente, a la mecánica de reconocimiento de la aviación del portaaviones. Por tanto, la repetición de esta secuencia de mecánicas, disminuyen drásticamente la jugabilidad del destructor, limitándolo a tal punto que, su impacto en una partida es entre escaso a nulo. Entonces, lo que quiero demostrar con este ejemplo es que, en mi consideración, no es el daño directo ni la habilidad del jugador de la aviación del portaaviones la principal preocupación de un destructor, sino que, lo que entorpece la jugabilidad de esta clase es la mecánica de reconocimiento de los portaaviones. ¿NERFEOS AL CV REALMENTE SON CORRECTOS? (RNG Y DAÑO) En cuando a lo que respecta a la aviación del portaaviones, debido a la falta de adaptación por parte de los jugadores de las demás clases y por una AA controlada por una IA, no ha podido WG lograr, al día de la fecha, un balance eficiente del portaaviones. Por el contrario, siguen apareciendo nuevos barcos de esta clase, que tienen una jugabilidad bastante peculiar, son divertidos, pero independientemente de la habilidad de cada jugador de cv, siguen impactando de manera drástica en una partida. De esta manera, considero que, el agregar nuevos barcos de esta clase, sin balancear las otras mecánicas producen, por lo general, un odio y rechazo a los cv por parte de la comunidad de World Of Warships; además de una indefinida cantidad de reportes (créanme que lo sufro día a día). En consecuencia, debido a la incapacidad de balanceo de la clase, los portaaviones han sufrido muchos nerfeos a sus parámetros de daño y a su RNG (Randon Number Generator). Seguro se preguntarán ¿cómo te das cuenta de que se modifica el RNG?; simplemente, los juego todos los días y me doy cuenta inmediatamente de estas modificaciones que, quizás algunos, la pasan por desapercibida. Entonces, hoy en día nos encontramos con lo siguiente: Una línea alemana de portaaviones cuyas bombas son un dolor de cabeza (y hay que cruzar los dedos para hacer daño por ciudadela) porque su retícula aumento drásticamente de tamaño, provocando un aumento en la dispersión de estas. Una línea estadounidense que tiene el mismo problema para lograr impactos con bombas a los destructores. Su modificación en el RNG fue tal que, hoy en día, es casi imposible de golpear a un destructor. (y eso que todavía no mencione nada sobre la modificación propuesta por la PTS 0.10.5). Una línea británica que, si bien es divertida, hace años no destaca en nada, por lo cual no puede ser considera para el juego en competitivo. Salvo excepciones, un AUDACIOUS aliado es considerado, por la gran mayoría de los jugadores, como un “ya perdimos la partida”. A pesar de estas cuestiones, el problema no es el daño de la aviación ni la habilidad del jugador lo impacta sobre el juego, sino la falta de un sistema de mecánicas eficiente que, en el caso de cruceros y acorazados, les permita a los jugadores la posibilidad de decidir entre enfrentar manualmente a la aviación o disparar a los barcos de superficie que estén a su alrededor; y en el caso de los destructores, le permitan moverse con mayor tranquilidad en toda la extensión del mapa. En conclusión, a partir de lo todo lo expuesto, y considerándome que soy principalmente jugador de portaaviones, vengo a proponerles a los desarrolladores de este juego, posibles mecánicas que permitan, quizás, balancear estos impactos de la mejor manera, evitando destruir a las clases. Propuestas de nuevas mecánicas EXPONER AL PORTAAVIONES A LA BATALLA Mi primera propuesta es lograr que los portaaviones sean móviles y que no sean estáticos. De esta manera, como a cualquier otra clase, los cv también se exponen al daño directo de la flota enemiga. ¿Cómo podemos hacer esto?, de la siguiente manera: Limitar el rango operativo de la aviación respecto al barco; de esta manera, los portaaviones, al igual que el resto de las clases, tienen un rango máximo de alcance. Limitar el tiempo de control de la aviación por el jugador a través de un contador de combustible tiempo dependiente. Esto debe realizarse de manera proporcional a las diferentes características de los escuadrones y portaaviones; así, se limitaría a un cv estar todo el tiempo operando con el mismo escuadrón. La limitación del alcance de la aviación debe obligar a los portaaviones a moverse por el mapa para poder operar por sectores y no por la totalidad del mapa. Disminuir el ocultamiento del portaaviones de manera proporcionada para permitir el desplazamiento. Debe exponerlo al daño enemigo (no puede tener el ocultamiento de un destructor), pero tampoco tiene que ser visible desde todo del mapa. Reforzar la dispersión de batería secundarias en portaaviones. En la actualidad, por ejemplo, no tiene sentido utilizar un Manfred Von Richthofen a secundarias si no se puede defender efectivamente. Como el portaaviones se expondrá mucho más a la batalla mediante su desplazamiento continuo, las secundarias deben ser ajustadas para que el barco sea más autónomo. De esta manera, la exposición del portaaviones es balanceada por una build de secundarias, que estará disponible opcionalmente por el jugador de la clase a través de la distribución de puntos de comandante. NUEVO SISTEMA DE RECONOCIMIENTO AÉREO La segunda propuesta es optimizar la interacción de la mecánica de reconocimiento entre la aviación y el destructor. El objetivo es que el spot aéreo, trabaje de manera similar a un radar; de esta manera, cuando el límite de detección por aire de los destructores sea superado por la aviación, estos puedan ser descubiertos por el portaaviones de manera instantánea para sí mismo, pero revelados, tanto en el mini mapa y como en rango de visualización, a los enemigos luego de 7 segundos. Por un lado, el jugador de la aviación de los portaaviones podrá elegir si mantendrá posición dentro del límite de detección del destructor para aportar información a los aliados, o si continuará su camino para atacar a otras clases. Por otro lado, durante este periodo de latencia de 7 segundos, el destructor podrá adoptar acciones evasivas con mucha anticipación hasta que su revelación, hacia la flota enemiga, sea efectiva. En caso contrario, si el jugador de destructor decide activar sus montajes AA (que tiene que ser de menos a más), y la aviación enemiga se encuentra dentro de su rango de AA, su posición es revelada instantáneamente a la flota enemiga, omitiendo la latencia de 7 segundos. De esta manera, el jugador de destructores podrá elegir entre dos escenarios diferentes: Mantener sus AA apagadas, activando el periodo de latencia de 7 segundos, para adoptar acciones evasivas o; Activar sus AA de manera, omitiendo el periodo de latencia, para combatir a la aviación al mismo tiempo que su posición es revelada a la flota enemiga. NOTA: los montajes AA de los destructores deben activarse de manera proporcional, por ejemplo, en un período de 3 segundos desde el 50 al 100% del daño (sin incluir la prioridad del sector); compensando, de esta manera, el riesgo adoptado por la aviación del portaaviones. NOTA 2: los fighters deben tener la misma restricción que la aviación del portaaviones, en cuanto al sistema de reconocimiento. Para el resto de las clases, la mecánica de reconocimiento y el daño de las AA debe mantenerse tal cual se encuentra en la actualidad. Nuevo sistema de defensa antiaérea En este último ofrecimiento, quiero proponer un nuevo sistema de defensa antiaérea que le permita a todas las clases, decidir entre defenderse de manera manual contra un portaaviones o mantenerlo en modo automático, mediante la IA, para combatir a otros barcos de superficie. La posibilidad de diseñar un nuevo modo defensa AA es lograr que, tanto el jugador que controla barco de superficie como el que controla la aviación, puedan batallar entre sí de manera directa, exponiendo sus habilidades en cuestión. Este nuevo sistema deberá contar con las siguientes características: Un modo AA manual que le permita a todos los barcos controlar la dirección del disparo de sus baterías AA, facultando a los mismos la posibilidad de interactuar directamente contra la aviación. Un modo AA automático que, en caso de estar en un combate directo contra otro barco de superficie, les permita a todos los barcos amortiguar el ataque de la aviación o, al menos, dificultar este ataque. De esta manera, todas las clases podrán adoptar entre dos escenarios posibles para defenderse del ataque de la aviación. Por un lado, podrán protegerse de manera manual pero no podrán maniobrar las baterías principales; de esta manera, la eficiencia AA dependerá de las habilidades del jugador y no de la IA. Por otro lado, la utilización de la AA en modo automático tendrá como objetivo resguardar al jugador mientras controla las baterías principales; así, la eficiencia AA será mucho menor que el modo manual, y será controlado por la IA. En consecuencia, lo importante es que cada jugador tenga la libertad de elegir que quiere hacer; si defenderse de la aviación o atacar a otros barcos con sus baterías principales; pero lo importante es DARLE AL JUGADOR LA POSIBILIDAD DE ELEGIR entre las opciones que mas les sirva ante cada situación. Conclusión Para finalizar tanto palabrerío, los que me conocen saben que soy un jugador, principalmente de portaaviones, y debido a que es un juego al que le presto un buen tiempo de mi vida, y que, por lo general solo veo comentarios negativos, vengo con estas propuestas que pueden ser discutidas; a algunos les gustaran a otros no, pero la intención de proponer esta y es lo importante. Saludos a los miembros del clan ARMADA DEL SUR y a SUR_S
  20. Dominator13

    Rocket bombers

    Hey, So, i noticed that there is a delay between when you send the rocket bombers to attack into an area and when they actually fire their rockets. I came back to the game from long ago, so this was not before, is this normal? can i control when to fire the rockets or there will be always a delay between sending the planes and firing their rockets?
  21. skull_122_steel

    Aquila Suggestion

    We are sooner or later getting the Aquila in game, there is really no point in not adding it even if they never add an Italian CV line. These are just my ideas on how she can work/ gimmick she could have. If tier VI, she should have RE 2001 CB as aircraft (as I'm pretty sure they could take off from a flight deck but the TA 152 are also CV planes so who cares), as the Italians had no self-made rockets for planes, she wouldn't have any attack squadrons. Also, because the Re's couldn't carry torps no torp bombers as well. she would have skip bombers with 2 100 Kg sap bombs per plane, two planes per attack, six planes in a squadron. as well, she would have AP dive bombers with a 250 Kg bomb, two planes per attack, six plane in a squadron. If tier VIII, she should have G 55s as aircraft. As the G 55s could carry a torpedo she would get a torpedo bomber squadron. one torp per plane, three planes per attack, nine planes per squadron. the armaments for the other squadrons remain the same but they have one more aircraft per attack and three more in a squadron. The main gimmick for her that I would want her to have, is the SAP skip bombers. I see them as an inaccurate shot gun to use against lighter ships while the AP bombers and torps are for the heavier ones.
  22. PD666

    I Miss Old Carriers

    Like the title said, I miss the old system carriers. The top down, RTS, death from above version of carriers. Yeah, it was unbalanced and cancerous, but it was the most fun I’ve had in a video game, ever. I have so much nostalgia for it. There was nothing more satisfying than getting all 6 of your torpedos to hit on a manual drop from an American torpedo squadron. I had so much fun making my way up the American Carrier tech tree. The Langley was fine, but it was SLOOOW, and you couldn’t do manual drops. The Bouge was also slow, but you could pick your configuration and do some real damage with the manual drops. I wasn’t a p•ssy, I played a 021 strike configuration. By the time I unlocked the Independence, I was regularly getting 100k+ games. The Indy was maybe my least favorite of the American CV’s that I played. Yeah it was fast, but it had pitiful aircraft reserves. The Indy was the only CV where I chose to play with the 111 balanced configuration. The plane reserves were just so shallow that I couldn’t risk hemorrhaging planes to enemy fighters. I didn’t do as well in the Indy as in the Bouge, probably because of the shallower plane pool and the leap in AA from other ships. There was nothing worse than getting into a tier 8 battle in the Indy. On to the Ranger. My favorite ship in the game. The speed of the Indy, a massive plane pool, and the giga chad 031 strike configuration. The couple of months where I got to play the Ranger were the height of my WoWS experiment. I’ve never been able to replicate(in WoWs) the thrill of curb stomping BBs with three dive bomber and one torpedo squadrons. That’s also when I realized that I was pretty fricking good at playing CVs. I was in the 1% of WoWS payers who not only enjoyed playing carriers, but were also capable of using them to really made a difference to their team. The crowning jewel of my CV career was a glorious game in my Ranger where I did nearly 250k damage, not doing more because I wasn’t paying attention and got myself sunk. I’m still sad that the WoWS replay system was crapand I didn’t get the game recorded. I’ll have to go back and see if I screenshoted the end of battle report. But the Ranger was as high as I got before I took a hiatus from the game, and by the time I got back into it, the rework had come along. It’s been my biggest video game related regret that I hadn’t spent more time grinding my way up the line. If anyone actually read through this entire essay of text…thank you? I just needed to dump my feelings somewhere, and the CV forum seemed like the right place.
  23. https://youtu.be/TN-xSjyMy2Y
  24. Opa meus consagrados, tudo bem? Trago até vocês hoje, as minhas impressões sobre o Max Immelmann,o primeiro porta-aviões de carvão do jogo . Está em dúvida se vai pegar ele ou não, continue lendo para saber oque eu achei. Não pretendo aqui descrever o início dele, nem de onde a Wargaming tirou o projeto, para isso, leia a Wiki. Primeiramente, vamos aos pontos positivos neste teste de longa duração Positivos · Brutal dano provocado tanto pelo impacto da explosão, quanto pelo incêndio · Ridícula possibilidade de incêndio (Base 64%, podendo ser ampliada para 69%) que deixou o Thunderer em empatado na escala geral · Velocidade base alta, tanto das aeronaves quanto das skip · Cidadela bem protegida, assim como do Manfred · AA decente, pode ser melhorada mais ainda · Regeneração das aeronaves é OK Negativa · Ocultamento ruim, embora possa ser melhorado · Deck é meio blindado, logo espere levar danos massivos na região · O HP das aeronaves é pobre · Tem um pouco menos de AA que seu homologo de linha · Torpedos além de lentos, não provocam inundação com facilidade · O navio é relativamente lento para se reposicionar, combinado com alto valor de detecção, pode resultar em fim de jogo para o player. Do Gameplay Ao longo dos últimos dias, vim testando quais seriam as melhores abordagens em partida para o Immelman , desde o uso das Skip aos torpedos. A primeira coisa que você tem que ter em mente é a seguinte, o HP das aeronaves é baixo, então eu recomendo que, você tente equilibrar pela habilidade de capitão e atualizações este ponto. Não adianta ter grande velocidade, se você quer ter aeronaves para um segundo ataque (ou até mesmo um primeiro ataque bem-feito). Outro ponto a ser destacado é que você sempre deve ir com 2/3 do esquadrão, para poupar aviões para o fim da partida. Lembre-se , quanto mais aviões você levar para o fim da partida, melhor será as suas chances de agricultura e apoio. Nos primeiros instantes da partida, faça o serviço de detecção (spot) para a equipe, lembre-se, use sempre como laterais do mapa, para detectar alvos grandes. Entretanto, não desperdice aviões a todo o instante, só porque alguém perdeu o alvo de vista (toda despercaça, consigo trás a certeza de perder aviões), usar como aeronaves com sabedoria. Um conselho pratico, de suporte no quadrante com menos aliados, ajude-os a, e não no cap cheio de aliados um pedido spot pro outro. Faça ataque com como bombas pular O grande trunfo do Max, é justamente os bombardeiros de pular. O grande segredo para um uso eficiente dele, é o alvo maiores pela broadside, com a terceira linha da mira, na altura da superestrutura. É bom que o inimigo saiba, que ficar recuado no fundo do mapa (achando isso, uma estratégia genial) pode resultar em uma grande dor de cabeça se do outro lado tiver um Max. Para minimizar o impacto do AA, começar o mirar na altura dos 7,5 km do alvo,combinado com a blindagem melhorada nas habilidades, você pode realizar até dois ataques com as bombas. Após o primeiro ataque no alvo, acelere forte, para escapar do dano contínuo. Espere ele usar o reparo, e voltar com os bombardeiros, se para um BB , ele vai descobrir o quão desagradável é levar um incêndio ou até mesmo dois, por queda. Immelman também é um bom caçador de cruzadores, entretanto deve ter uma atenção maior a quem esta atacando, pode-se perfeitamente retirar 10k de um cruzador, se todos os bombásticos pegarem (além do incêndio, é obvio). Faça ataque com torpedos Honestamente, nas primeiras fases da partida, como spot e negação de área para o inimigo, os torpedos talvez sejam a opção mais viável, guardando verdadeiramente a arma secreta para o meio da partida em diante. Os torpedos do Max, são os mesmos presente no Graff Zepe, com adição de um torpedo a mais. São torpedos lentos, tiram pouco dano individual, mas quebram um galho no início, além dos alvos mais irritars maiores. Com o plus de recuperação de HP, você pode realizar até os três ataques oque é interessante, quando você precisa ajudar a minar a HP de algum alvo. No geral, eles não têm um brilho tão grande, mas cumprem o seu proposito (pode-se tirar até 9K se todos pegarem, mais ou menos) Defendendo o navio, caso tudo vá por água a baixo Confesso que ficou chocado com a estratégia de alguns dd's inimigos, flanquear o mapa para atacar o CV, isso revela uma falta de estratégia da equipe, mas nem tudo este perdido. Atualmente, não se compensa muito em fazer a construção de secundaria, mas recomendo fortemente que você gaste dois pontos das habilidades de capitão, para melhorar a AA do navio e a secundaria. Também existe uma atualização "modificação da bateria secundaria", você não precisa de mais doque essas duas coisas, para auxiliar na defesa do navio. Lembre-se, sempre manter o cv em movimento conforme o tempo avança, quanto mais você está longe deles, mais áreas vazias terão no mapa, que podem ser aproveitados pelo dd's Quando para detectado, volte imediatamente como aeronaves e comece a ziguezaguear para evitar os torpedos. Não desmoraliza até o se manifestarem do dd, a secundaria ligeiramente ampliada pode ajudar o minar os inimigos. Para usar como bombardeiros de pular, a ideia é usar a primeira linha da mira, ou se puder se distanciar, esperar a redução reticular para ter uma certeza maior do impacto. Encerramento Pessoal, estas foram minhas impressões com o navio, em breve eu posto da construção aqui . Estou a vontade para comentar, criticar ou comparar. Um abraço
×