Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cvs'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 60 results

  1. skull_122_steel

    An Idea For CVs

    So I think we can all agree the CV rework was handled poorly, But from what I've seen the main issue people have is that CVs have no direct involvement in shooting down enemy planes. All they can do is pop a fighter and hope the planes fly through it. So I have an Idea, Does anyone remember the old strafe mechanic that fighter squadrons could do. Well my Idea is this, Instead of making attack run you could choose to strafe, Rocket planes would do the most damage while Torp bombers will do the least and when the DB and TB are the same plane the difference in the length of time the strafe last
  2. So straight up this is NOT a serious post. Its part alcohol-infused day dream, part national pride, and pure silliness. But here's my big idea: What if we put another Yorktown-class carrier in the game, named her Hornet, and slapped some B-25s on her AND NOTHING ELSE. Well how does that work you ask? EASY! 1-3 planes per wave, insane health, slow, "one way" attack waves. payload: british carpet bombing pattern but with American HE bombs, yeah the big ones. Like, if you hit a bismarck you'd take half his health. WHY?!? cuz. drugs are a hell of a drugs.
  3. Greyson2017

    A batalha mais divertida esse ano...

    Todo mundo reclama dos CVs e etc... Mas se eles saíssem do jogo, com certeza fariam certa falta. Inclusive a partida que eu achei mais divertida conteve 3 CVs para cada time Foi bastante interessante, pois parecia realmente uma batalha naval real; Muitos tiros de AA, desviar de torpedos, bombas, misseis além de atirar nos navios inimigos. O time também jogou muito bem, e vencemos. Não sei como está os CVs acima do nivel VI, mas até o VI está divertido jogar com eles. Infelizmente não consegui gravar a partida (PC Ruim) mas fica uma imagem da batalha (ou melhor, do inicio dela hahaha).
  4. 10T0nHammer

    How Did 8.5 Affect CVs?

    One of those sleepless nights so I decided to pull all CV data using maple.suryp's site. Credit is definitely due here since they did all the hard work. Now that we have a clear difference between pre and post 8.5 update, I can finally draw better conclusions from current CV stats. Stats in question are from these two week-long snapshots: 07/13/2019 and 06/29/2019. Feel free to check it out yourselves in case you're worried about the validity of the numbers. If interested, here are the complete numbers for your perusal: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cBmGFwL6I4LByKj1Ex9ntLddK-qoV3Tju3hot_ds9oE/edit#gid=1892558858 First, we will start with win rates: Nation Tier Name 06/29/19 WR 07/13/19 WR Change RN 10 Audacious 53.90% 50.69% -3.21% ▼ JP 10 Hakuryu 51.83% 48.54% -3.29% ▼ US 10 Midway 48.38% 48.75% 0.37% ▲ US 8 Enterprise 53.98% 52.96% -1.02% ▼ KM 8 Graf Zeppelin 50.32% 50.97% 0.65% ▲ RN 8 Implacable 48.36% 49.15% 0.79% ▲ JP 8 Kaga 45.72% 50.83% 5.11% ▲ US 8 Lexington 48.16% 48.44% 0.28% ▲ US 8 Saipan 50.71% 51.67% 0.96% ▲ JP 8 Shokaku 49.94% 48.27% -1.67% ▼ RN 6 Furious 51.18% 48.84% -2.34% ▼ US 6 Ranger 48.77% 48.13% -0.64% ▼ JP 6 Ryujo 51.24% 51.57% 0.33% ▲ RN 4 Hermes 51.67% 53.64% 1.97% ▲ JP 4 Hosho 50.10% 49.12% -0.98% ▼ US 4 Langley 49.91% 48.82% -1.09% ▼ Average Change -0.24% ▼ It was surprising to see the Kaga doing so poorly before the 8.5 change, outside that, the results are a mixed bag. It should be noted that the Audacious has such a small number of people playing it that its stats are going to be volatile for a bit longer. For example, for the week of 07/13/2019, it only had 60 players for a total of 748 battles. Damage: Nation Tier Name 06/29/19 Damage 07/13/19 Damage Change RN 10 Audacious 87137 76630 -12.06% ▼ JP 10 Hakuryu 90653 73115 -19.35% ▼ US 10 Midway 80789 67757 -16.13% ▼ US 8 Enterprise 60262 52676 -12.59% ▼ KM 8 Graf Zeppelin 52360 48463 -7.44% ▼ RN 8 Implacable 52974 45855 -13.44% ▼ JP 8 Kaga 52775 48650 -7.82% ▼ US 8 Lexington 53951 46576 -13.67% ▼ US 8 Saipan 65116 53451 -17.91% ▼ JP 8 Shokaku 54701 48469 -11.39% ▼ RN 6 Furious 39062 34094 -12.72% ▼ US 6 Ranger 32784 30505 -6.95% ▼ JP 6 Ryujo 40694 37216 -8.55% ▼ RN 4 Hermes 26815 23402 -12.73% ▼ JP 4 Hosho 24276 21196 -12.69% ▼ US 4 Langley 20569 18602 -9.56% ▼ Average Change -12.19% ▼ Hopefully it doesn't delete this time. The purpose of this post is more to see how 8.5 changed CVs for my own curiousity. I figured if I'm curious, maybe others are too. It's not about whether or not CVs are OP or UP. Edit: The forums deleted over half my post. That's fun.. Edit 2: @KaptainNemo_1, thanks for catching that mistake, this is why one shouldn't math while tired. Edit 3: IDK why but that mention below will not delete. Sorry if I double pinged ya KaptainNemo @KaptainNemo_1
  5. Don't play them. Yeah, funny. I got that one out there for you so you don't have to put it in here. But here's the funny thing, to me at least. I keep reading on this forum and elsewhere about all these "secret tips" on how to play carriers post 0.8.5 and still kick stern. I go to youtube, do a search for carriers and 0.8.5 and get nothing. I searched the web - I get nothing. Surely those of you possessing this dark knowledge must know other carrier players, who are less than you, need these tips and tricks. Heck, videos would be even better. Since I know nothing, I'm hoping the expert carrier players here will share, so the rest of us may survive these days, weeks ahead. tiafyc
  6. Title says it all. Personally I would like to see an unryuu class ship and bearn be added in the future.
  7. WanderingGhost

    I promised you a text wall

    As the title says - a text wall follows so the crowd that leaves snooze emotes because TL;DR - leave now unless your WG staff. I downloaded and played 8.5 today, and as I said in the other thread with my preliminary thoughts on what I was seeing from patch notes, WG Staff, and player feedback if it wasn't good or at least not terrible I'd be writing a wall. Well, here comes the wall. As it was, the entire AA system was bad, and in need of work - you have made it even worse. A common statement, by your staffers, is that it is more punishing "for those that loiter in AA, and who aren't dodging". Your team has actively hindered the ability of planes to dodge in attack runs even if we don't care about dialing our aim in. The moment you release ordnance your group gets stuck flying straight to be shot at and the other group you have no control as AA shreds them trying to return to the carrier because of the escape altitude changes. And per again, a staffers statement "it wasn't fair to see a CV have all it's planes return as a surface ship" - It was equally unfair when as a CV we see no planes return even after dropping all our ordnance - because after we lost control of our planes they were obliterated. And it's even worse now with this new system. And what is actually worst about this system - it's not like it gave everything OP AA. No - the DD's are still easy as hell to pick on and other typically weak AA ships, same with under tier - but clearly Worcester decloaking as it's AA guns open fire wasn't OP enough, you had to make it even more lethal. It was mentioned it was like AA "was focusing on a target" - yeah, it feels like the same nonsense that manual AA was under RTS - pathetic on anything not already sporting good long range AA, but OP on anything with good or OP long range AA - OP or straight up brokenly OP. And I'm sorry if this seems to veer at times to "less or not constructive" - but I'm seeing the same mistakes and processes that made RTS a problem being repeated. I'm seeing the same mistakes and blunders. I'm seeing things, that we were told this rework was being shoved down our throats for if we wanted it or not was going to remove or lessen, added back in. That this would be easier to balance for your team - and yet here we are, 5 months in, going in to month 6, of the live release, let alone the other 3-4 from the Beta period, no closer to anything resembling FAIR balance and CV play on the decline AGAIN. Instead of seeing a bunch of planes drop and going "well I must have been hit by flak" - no I'm now seeing that it really was auto cannons ripping my planes apart as I watch the health bars vanish. It's not fair that surface vessels are either launching nerf darts or using freaking PHALANX point defense systems. At this point, the entire rework feels like nothing but half baked, half tested, half implemented ideas. I feel like there is no actual plan in regards to CV's other than churn more out as premiums that shouldn't be (Ark Royal) when the system is still incomplete and in need of massive work and balance but adding yet another x factor (again, Ark Royal) when there should be ZERO new carriers testing till the damned ones we have are balanced. There are a ton of factors to balancing CV's that need to be addressed so for any reading - I am specifically going to focus at the moment on AA and plane losses/replenishment much as damage and a ton of other crap needs work too that I've gone over in other places. The one thing that is not fully related, is that odd tiers need to return for CV's - because there needs to be a smoother progression and adaption for both CV and Non CV players through tiers. 1. AA and planes need a flat rate "average" - What this means, is that regardless of if it's an 'imaginary number' or actually applies to a plane (likely UK or Germany if not one of the other 3 potential national lines) there is a middle road of DPS and Plane HP, lets say 2000 and 10000 respectively, that is considered the 'average' and for "flavour", prefereably based on history, DPS and Plane HP are +/- to that by a maximum of lets say 10%. So IJN and USN being the two extremes the difference in DPS is 1800 vs 2200 and plane HP 9000 vs 11000. That said though, IJN planes would have better agility to dodge Flak, USN have the extra added HP because not as agile, and kinda need it. But this means your average ship, barring ones that actually have next to nothing on AA and are usually premiums, while having weaker or stronger AA, is not as wild and all over the place. 2. Scaling of HP and DPS - tying in to point one - these two things need to scale through tiers and why I have been saying for years now that tiers 4-7 at minimum need their late war outfits of AA, or have some created where none existed. At least to make the numbers make more sense on why it's AA is so close to the next tier up. Which with that said - The worst AA and plane HP of a tier should be no lower than the average of the previous tier, and the best of each should be no higher than the average of the next tier up. So as an example, Lexington vs lets say Amagi is worst AA. Lexintons planes, at most, have HP on par with a typical tier 9 carrier while at worst, Amagi has AA comparable to an average tier 7. Again, this is best and worst case. And even then the gap between tiers on both AA and plane HP should not be that great. Again, the example of tier 8 being 2000 and 10000, 9 and 10 should be lets say 2100/11000 and 2200/12000 while 7-4 is 1900/9000, 1800/8000, 1700/7000, 1600/6000. Those are pure example numbers, I have not mathed them out or the like. 3. Simplicity and Flak - I'm combining these two because they go a bit hand in hand. What do I mean by "Simplicity" - I mean that the system should be frakkin' easy to understand with no 'mystery' numbers. Case in point, the need of someone like LWM or others to explain 'Hit Probability' is actually some random modifier that adjust the tick rate of damage and having things like aircraft armor and all. Your new 'ring' system, while annoying in it's limiting nature, can at least be worked around. Let's take the 'average' USN ship armed with 40 mm bofors, 20 mm Oerlikons, and 5"/38's. The ring of 5/38's should likely have the lowest DPS as the typical RoF was about a shell every 4-5 seconds - and the AA should match this. When they hit the next ring, the 40 mm guns open up, on top of flak, so, whatever DPS is assigned to the 40 mm guns takes over, while flak remains the same (as 40 MM guns DON'T USE FLAK ROUNDS) so in essence 'both' sets are firing. In theory as long as you can seperate when flak bursts occur from constant damage, you could even add the constant DPS of the Flak guns in if they are even given any. The 40 mm bofors has a RoF of 120 RPM for the majority of guns in game - 2 rounds every second. So, every 1 second, damage should be inflicted - unless you want to add a legit chance that the plane 'resists' (avoids) the damage. IE the 'hit probability' if it stayed saying say 90% means there's a 10% chance the DPS doesn't happen, or that in theory if the DPS is 200 per second in that AA, and a plane is there for 10 seconds he only takes 1800 damage not 2000 most likely. Think of it as 'fire chance for planes' but I digress. 20 mm L70's average 4-5 RPS, so damage per gun at the shortest range there should be the equivalent of (4[5]x 20 mm rounds + 2x 40 mm rounds)*number of barrels = DPS per one second tick. or a fixed number subtracting average from Flak's constant. To which getting in to Flak as I say above it should be based around the actual fire rate of the only guns that use them - which is guns of 3" or greater. And there are 2 models that can be used 1 or the other, or both used and depend on the ship - Either Flak bursts all fire at the same time every x seconds, or, Flak bursts are staggered for a more constant bursting. With no random modifires to it - if a ships has a broadside of 8x 5 inch barrels - 8 flak bursts. Operating on a 5 second reload that means 8 every 5 seconds, 4 every 2.5 seconds, or 2 every 1.25 seconds. Something like Atlanta is a bit insane at 14 every 4-5 seconds, a good case of "should be halved" that while it may not make technical sense (unless Wargaming can pair as a rotation of 6 and 8 guns) to 7 every 2-2.5 seconds. And whatever flak bursts the ships have for long range guns - they have the same number at mid range. And Flak should be relatively low damage that is in addition to whatever the base line of the constant DPS is - it should be there to cause players to dodge, obscure view, and punish those that let 13 bursts hit them. But they should not be these insane walls that were seeing that can obliterate planes as they do. To summarize 'simplicity' on the player end - Flak does damage when it hits, either DPS is constant, and you know that you will deal x damage every z seconds the plane is in that AA bubble, or that 'hit probability' if it remains' is not some modifier that isn't what it says, but is in fact just that, a 90% chance the planes are hit by 40 mm rounds, or 40 and 20 mm rounds, or whatever. And that if a ship has G number of guns it fires F number of Flak rounds, at any range. 4. Consistency of modules - Look, with a staggered system, if we assign base numbers and divvy out the damage, a bit harder to keep 20 mm damage consistent, not impossible, but harder. But even if the DPS isn't 100% the same - the damned ranges need to be. It doesn't matter what ship it's a secondary on/AA gun on - if the range of a 5"/38 is 5 km then every BB, cruiser, and CV 5"/38 should have a range of 5 km - and likely a RoF of 12-15 RPM. Ones that are improved closer to 20 RPM likely are a different mod or designation, they all have that near 20 RPM RoF and whatever range those guns get. Were we to lower DPS of AA enough, and not possibly have DD's throwing a fit, I'd argue that the 5"38 guns AA and secondary attack range should be equal to that of any DD with the same gun and further extend the AA ranges (longer in AA range, but less damage per hit). No magic range increases from tier alone or just because. 5. AFT and BFT - BFT needs to be changed that it reduces the time between the flak bursts the same way it reduces secondary firing times. While having no effect on the smaller non DP AA guns. AFT on the other hand, needs to return to a range boost to secondaries and AA both, even the small ones - even if that means the minimum range increases too (tradeoffs). Not adding random flak bursts and what not. 6. 'Secondary', 'AA', and 'Auxiliary' Armament mods - These should not be 3 separate things, never should have been divided up in Beta. I'd personally change it to something along the lines of "Point Defense" or the like as this is more or less what it's improving, but Mod 1 should be as is beyond maybe name change, Mod 2 should return to a single item that buffs Secondary gun range, AA range, and Secodary accuracy, and Mod 3 should be a decrease in reload time of secondary batteries and another reduction to time between flak bursts from these same guns. Destroyers should have a special new module unique to the type, or at least any that has DP main batteries, that while it may not increase accuracy and all increases main battery and AA range (as opposed to Mod 2 as few have secondaries) and the mod 3 slot being RoF and Flak bursts just for primaries, not secondaries. 7. Plane counts or 'on deck' planes - There is no damned reason Lexington should have only 48 planes available. Same with the pathetic numbers on most every other tech tree CV, save maybe the lowest tiers that actually had so few planes. Every carrier should be following the 'Kaga' model - their plane count/reserves match historical numbers. I also believe the planes per flight/squadron should change too, but that's a separate story. "But that takes away Kaga's thing" - shouldn't have been it's 'thing' in the first place. I can think of half a dozen other things to make it different. What it should have, to compensate for weaker planes, is that they replenish faster then it's counterparts that have maybe similar numbers, but better planes. On the reverse end, while it may have 'better' planes, using that term very loosely, Saipan with it's limited maxium plane count, affording far fewer full squadrons should catastrophic losses be incurred, should have a regen timer so that it replenishes planes faster than now, and possibly than normal, so while it can't spam say 3 waves of TB's, it's not waiting as long on any losses to replenish. Which, if we finally get AA balanced right, yes, they aren't taking as many losses to -2 ships, but are still taking losses, and while not slaughtered like now by high tier ships, still heavier losses vs +2 ships, but not enough to become overly problematic unless you really, REALLY screw up and need to learn to play CV better, then these changes to plane counts and regen should be a non-issue. Still leaves CV alpha damage, CV accuracy especially after all the nerfs, return of odd tiers, aircraft speed, skills, control of CV's, historical accuracy in way too many areas, flavour and differentiating ships and lines, plane mobility, spotting, and likely a couple other things I'm forgetting to fix just when it comes to CV's but hey, it'd be a start.
  8. This is a summary of a video by the well known youtube historian "Thehistoryguy", with decorative flourishes of dubious accuracy added by myself. Be sure to watch the full video, link at the bottom of this topic. Context : 19th-20th June 1944 Battle of the Phillipine Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea Japan sent 5 fleet carriers and 4 light carriers, supported additionally by land based aircraft, a host of other warships including 68 destroyers and 28 submarines to deal a decisive, "war winning" blow to American naval power in the Pacific, hoping to force the USA to sue for peace. The target of the Japanese task force : 15 American aircraft carriers, 5 battleships and assorted cruisers, destroyers and submarines. (and you guys complain when there are 2 CVs per side in WOWS!) The battle turned into a disaster for Japan, with catastrophic loss of life, aircraft and warships. More than 600+ planes shot down, for 100+ USN aircraft, nearly 3000 Japanese aviators and sailors died, compared to few more than 100 US navy personnel, 3 IJN fleet carriers sunk, while the USN suffered no losses of warships apart a damaged battleship. Players : Among the fleet carriers deployed by Japan, was the Shokaku, a pre-war purpose built aircraft carrier, which had fought a long and thus far, successful war, that had participated in Pearl Harbour in 1941, sunk HMS Hermes in March 1942 (which we recall as the first purpose designed aircraft carrier), and which would a short time later, once more, in May of the same year, earn the hatred of American sailors by helping to sink USS Lexington in the Battle fo the Coral Sea. Shokaku, or Soaring Crane, laid down in 1937, commissioned in 1941, was a significant threat to the allied forces in the Pacific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shōkaku Each of the opposing fleets deployed scores of submarines, as scouts to relay information about the enemy back to their respective fleets, and as opportunistic threats to whichever enemy vessels strayed into their lurking sweep/ Among the USN Submarines, was a Gato class, USS Cavalla. Laid down in March 1943, commissioned in November of the same year. Cavalla displaced, surfaced, more than some destroyers, at 1500 long tons, and was quite as, if not more, deadly, which she would prove on her first deployment. Her role, under the command of Herman J. Kossler was that of a scout in the avant-garde of the USN fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cavalla_(SS-244) https://www.galvestonnavalmuseum.com/uss-cavalla-history.html Submarine vs CV! on the 19th June, USS Cavalla spotted an aircraft carrier in the process of recovering aircraft (which would limit the warships ability to manouvre). Unaware of the Carrier's name, and so of her significance, Cavalla's commander and crew prepared a firing solution through a combination of estimation and their on board analogue computer (no pc or console games installed as far as we know). 6 "fish" were fired, to ensure that at least some hit, and exploded, USS Cavalla dove deep immediately after releasing the torpedos, fully aware the tracks of the torps would be visible to both the enemy carrier and her (numerous) destroyer escorts. This deprived the submarine of immediate confirmation of exactly what happened to her torpedoes. No photographic record exists (or at least, has survived) of what follows, what we know is based upon eye witness accounts of Japanese survivors on board Shokaku, and witnesses on board escorting vessels. One minute after diving, USS Cavalla sonar picked up 3 explosions. 2 minutes later, the Submarine, heard the passage of destroyers over head, and the violent shockwaves of depth charges. More than a thousand depth charges would be dropped in the following hours, until night fell. Apart damage to non vital systems, USS Cavalla escaped unscathed, without casualties/ So what was happening, on the surface? Of the three torpedos that hit Shokaku, one struck her amidships, causing her aviation fuel stores to rupture, explode, and spread fuel and fumes throughout her hangar sections, and later throughout the ship. One of the three torpedoes stuck near the bow, causing severe flooding. Essential systems including pumps were disabled, and so unable to combat flooding, unable to fight spreading fires, her captain, ordered her crew to begin an orderly evacutation "abandon ship but don't panic please". Even as the evacuation was progressing, the aviation fumes which had spread through the lower decks of the ship, finally exploded, the entire Carrier had become a fuel air bomb. She sank, vertically, bow first. More than 1000 sailors perished, 500 surviving sailors were picked out of the water by assisting warships. (note : different online accounts have differing explanations for this final, and terminal, catastrophic explosion. Watch the video for more information.) When night fell, USS Cavalla surfaced to assess the situation and to learn if her attack had fully succeeded, but poor visibility in bad weather prevented her from investigating further. She reported back to fleet, having sucessfully scored three torpedo hits on a Japanese CV., only some time later learning that she had indeed sunk not only a Japanese fleet aircraft carrier, but that she had "avenged" HMS Hermes, Pearl Harbour and USS Lexington, among other casualties of Shokaku's wartime record. Aftermath : While not the only cause of Japan's defeat at the battle of the Phillipine Sea, one 1500 ton submarine had destroyed 20% of Japan's fleet carriers, with a volley of 6 torpedos. USS Cavalla, her commander and crew fought on until the war's end, her Commandnr would remain with the US Navy for a further 40 years, retiring as a much decorated rear Admiral, while USS Cavalla, was finally decommissioned in 1969. I hope the summary will help as an introduction to the video, with the links as useful sources of further information. But they do not replace the very educational, and properly researched, HistoryGuy video. Please do take the time to watch it, or just listen to it as you play WOWS! Disclaimer : I have ulterior motives in posting topics that involve submarines vs CVs, and CVs vs submarines. I apologize if you find this irritating! For the tech heads : http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksink.htm complex studies involving numbers higher than I can count/
  9. Excellent National Interest article for those interested. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-aircraft-carrier-and-submarine-hunted-each-other-during-falklands-war-63657 partipants : Argentina : Veinticinco de Mayo originally a British carrier launched in 1945 named the HMS Venerable, sold to The Netherlands in 48, renamed as Karel Doorman, before being resold to Argentina in 1969. Equipped in 1982 with Skyhawks, ex U.S. Navy S-2E Trackers with sonar buoys, Sea King helicopters with dipping sonar Py, former Gearing class destroyer, USS Perkins. Advanced long range sonar. Santisima Trinidad - British export type 42 destroyer Hercules - British export type 42 destroyer Britain : Churchill class (nuclear powered) HMS Conqueror armed with anti sub Tigerfish torpedos, anti ship Mk 8 (ww2 era) torpedos. Swiftsure class (nuclear powered) HMS Splendid and Spartan, armed with anti sub Tigerfish torpedos, anti ship Mk 8 (ww2 era) torpedos. Valiant class (nulcear powered) HMS Valiant Oberon class (diesel electric) HMS Onyx Enjoy the read.
  10. I mean it's only fair. You can, and do, have 4 BB's or more in a game, 4 cruisers or more in a game, 4 dd's in a game. YET CV's are limited to one at tier 10 and 2 others tiers. This adds to a CV player's queue time and seems totally unfair. Why doesn't WG open it up to be fair like the other classes of boats? Totally unfair to this class.
  11. Recently got into playing CVs and I kind of enjoy playing them but after playing them for a bit it feels like there should be more. My question is just what could WG add to make CVs to make the gameplay even more fun? Some ideas I have are, altitude control, add the ability to change db bombs from either ap or he bombs when they are on deck ,and add ome manual aa to all ships to add some skill with dodging it or something
  12. A lot of changes happen in rapid succession over CVs, and a lot of them are about the planes, not the hulls, not fixing technical errors, or pathfinding of the CV, so let's take this one at a time. Hull issues: A balance hellscape. When a player cannot control their avatar, they are in their most vulnerable state, generally games compensate by automatically controlling the avatar in the most sensible means possible, but with the current system it's even worse than if the game controlled the Player Avatar (Carrier) so a bunch of survivability changes are on them, such as being only able to: Burn for 5 Seconds, Flood for 5 Seconds, conventional immunity to Detonations, and most carriers are at least somewhat armored. This is because of the godawful Control systems, which I'll go over In a bit, but most importantly, people feel like they just can't kill the carrier, as if they have a Lead-Up (VERY IMPORTANT) they can easily run away and break contact or force a stern chase, even with the broken autopilot. Stand-Out technical errors: 404 Stability not found. The AA is pretty, I won't deny that, but people on weaker rigs basically can't play because AA is such a graphical sledgehammer now, there isn't even a low res version of the tracers either, and because all the tracers are white, can't really tell the difference. I don't have a problem with performance graphically and frame wise, but other people are. Another thing is the crashes, freezing, and the, what I'll just call; "Dont look away" glitch. Where if you have your mouse DPI set somewhat high, and you look up and to the side just when you spot someone AND initiate a DB attack, the game freaks out and locks your screen with the graphic of the view of the planes from below, albeit it seems I can only replicate it in operations, I'm pretty sure I got reported for AFK or ragequit enough to turn pink as it's been happening a lot recently. And before anyone asks, no, it isn't computer performance/file integrity/having to reinstall, computer shows green lights across the board, files are all correct and I reinstalled the game twice. Finally: the biggest issue, the autopilot. As much as there is *somewhat* of a balance issue regarding carriers, i still feel this takes precedent, as no other ship has to rely on a means of movement that is a dice roll if it will kill you, work as intended, or just pull a Notser on seemingly nothing. The current state of Autopilot enforces a really passive, campy, back of the map CV style, Ive tried on more battles than I can count, random, co-op, operation, training, all trying to see in any of these modes if a close support carrier can work, and it can, on One, Co-op, where victory is almost a guarantee, I haven't tried Ranked because 1. Toxic ranked community would torpedo TK the bejeezus out of me, and two, no T10 CV for me yet. But im grinding it out. Back on to the autopilot problems and how it enforces this style of play, it's well and truly terrible, it can't read waypoints, has terrible route selection, and it's rudder/engine authority is worse than a player with 6 games in a tier 4 DD trying to torpedobeat 6 Shimas, in other words, it crashes into Islands, players, and can only stop when it hits something, it's just bad enough you NEED to adapt, and i sort of have, but it's inconsistent enough you CANT adapt, for instance, telling it to reverse the ship and go slightly left, it will ALWAYS go FLANK FORWARD AND LEFT. Sooooooo, what do you all thing about this?
  13. As others have noted, CV on CV alpha strikes are avoided BY DESIGN. For the most part, CVs are still vulnerable to air strikes. One can still go after the other CV. The reason this doesn't happen more often is the CV is seldom the most optimal target. Again, this is BY DESIGN. That said, I've seen many situations where CV on CV "is" the most optimal strategy. But this is usually in conjunction with a concentrated surface effort or a serendipitous event. So the explanation I was given on the forum by a Soshi_Sone is that there is no CV Counter play by design and the reason being to prevent unbalancing. At the time I didn’t counter the statement because I don’t think WG realized how flawed this approach is First lets look at the evidence to support this: Unlimited Planes No fighter Cover Ridicoluos Repair Mechanics on CV Getting rid of the skill gap AA Rework OP CV Air Cover Each of these on there own seems innocent enough until you realize that when you put them together than yes WG doesn’t want CV counter play. Unfortunately the logic behind this is really flawed and the whole thing is a mess because of point 4. The Skill Gap Prior to rework OP CV players were OP managing 6 things at a time very successfully The bad CV players were bad at even 1 thing. After Rework OP CV players who only need to manage 1 thing which is a cake walk Bad CV players are still bad at 1 thing. Why the Skill Gap is worse WG has nerfed CVs from the beginning of the rework right into 8.4 and this a very futile attempt by WG to balance things out because individual OP players are running up solid damage numbers. So in an attempt to balance things out we see constant CV nerfs. Here are some of the nerfs: Speed nerf, alpha nerf , launch nerf aim nerf, gravity nerf etc. This is all the evidence you need that the skill gap has not changed and in fact may be even worse. The Fix-Cut the number of attack runs to 1 A solid CV player with good aim will probably score hits on all 3 runs and a bad CV player on will score hits on 1 run. So even the game out let all CV players have 1 run at a target before they F key out of there. Making the aiming easier from higher heights for Dive Bombers and longer drop distance for Torpedo Bombers Increase the speed mechanics for all bombs and torpedoes so the lower skill level players can hit. For example my USS IOWA at full speed is about as fast as dropped torpedo. A Failure of Design Remember cross drops? Well guess what they are still a thing! I have recently learned how to cross drop torpedoes from another player who showed me how to do it and reduce the chances of being shot down. So the hated cross drop is still in the game despite WG making every effort to eliminate cross drops from the game. The Bigger Failure of Design I was never really good at CVs in the RTS version but what I was good at was defending my teammates from air attacks and luring enemy fighters into flak traps. So while I didn’t do a lot of damage I prevented a lot of damage. With fighters removed from the game the less then good CV players are even more useless now because they cannot even defend the fleet which is probably the one thing they were actually reasonable at. If you have no fighters which is a basic function of CVs than you MUST HAVE OP AA. This also means DDs are going to be forever vulnerable as long as the rework doesn’t allow CVs to deploy fighters. The solution would be for each CV to have a fighter squadron or 2 that could be deployed to cover a certain area or team mate for a specific time. The current system major flaw is the fighter cover is too short to be of any good but you have to understand why-WG doesn’t want CV counter play by design. In Retrospect Battles with 2 CVs are more or less boring because only 4 players are having fun Battles for CVs in T8-10 are no fun for CVs because of murderous AA and DDs are unfortunately are fish food for CVs. The RTS interface was terrible but the balance between AA and CVs was pretty good. All WG needed to do was fix the game interface and not mess with anything else and tweak a few things. You can have exactly the same interactive play with the current rework without changing the overall balance you had in RTS. WG nailed the CV rework in 8.0 but panicked because a few OP players exploited a flaw. Instead of really looking at the issue and taking CVs offline for a few day’s they took a bulldozer and got rid of the 8.0 Rework. As a player base we need to understand that CV 8.0 REWORK is dead and was buried in the 1st week or 2. Now we have a 8.1 patch up re-work. WG really needs is tell the player base we are going to take CVs off line for 30 days we will consult with the best CV players and were going to bring it back better. I honestly don't think they have the courage to do so but it would earn them a lot of respect from the player base and it would be a REALLY GOOD BUSINESS DECISION. Give the player base a break from CVs for 30 days. Final Word WG desire for no CV counter play is not only a bad design decision but it really is a slap in the face to the majority of its customers. Basically WG is catering to a niche group of players who are basically making the majority of the player base miserable by giving them a gameplay mode where they cannot be countered in any meaningful way and I can only now imagine how DD players feel about that and those with weak AA that they are basically at the mercy of a CV players skill level which the rework failed to address in the first place. It’s a terrible business decision as well. Sorry Soshi_Sone I have to drag u into this..my apologies in advance...…….but your statement was stunning and unfortunately after looking into it you are 100% right
  14. vestroia

    BUFF THE AUDACIOUS

    First of all , English isnt my first language and please this is just a suggestion or my thoughts. The Audacious needs a buff, I reached rank 10 by just playing the Audacious and I can say it wasn't that impressive because the other enemy Cvs (Midway and Haku) perform way better even after they got nerfed. I had to rely on my team to carry me throughout every single match, am just reduced to a recon support. Among the 3 Tier 10 CVs , Most CV pilots would rank the Audacious as bottom tier or a third choice pick, why ? because the Audacious planes gets outperformed in every aspect compared to its other CV counterparts. 1. Its rocket planes not really the best but still decent , I wish WG would give Audacious a second or optional load for its rocket planes . The S4 Wyvern historically was able to equip 2( 8 x AP Mk1 rockets). This loadout would give the Audacious a new style of play as the AP rockets were effective against heavily armored targets hence it would be useless against DDs but effective against battle cruisers and BBs. I don't know why the Americans get to have a second loadout while other nations are left out , this is just simply unfair. 2. Its torps are the most accurate , its planes have good speed, fastest turn time and quickest aiming time but requires skill to use because how slow its torps are how ever this is fine,it rewards players who knows how to lead their targets with precision and accuracy. 3. Its carpet bombers feels weak and falls really slows ( it defies Newton first law of gravity) , infact the Midway does bombing better than the Audacious so does the Haku . The low pen and high altitude drop with the latest global reticle and speed nerf really hinders the audacious performance. Solution : Increase the Audacious bombs penetration and reduce its ordinance it can carry per squadron, while at it get rid of the stupid HP gimmick , if am going to sacrifice my health to get better damage so be it at least AA ships can be effective at shooting the planes down faster.
  15. pastore123

    Cv rant thread

    Just got done with a battle in my Alaska and my div partner had an Iowa. The enemy team had an Enterprise. Although the Iowa and I stayed together for the most part, our overlapping aa didn't even deter their cv. He kept on dropping on us and making successful runs and continued to have full squadrons the whole match. At the end of the match, I totaled 36k damage to planes and only knocked out 25 planes: 9 fighters, 8 attack planes (rockets), 3 dive bombers, and 5 torpedo bombers. The Iowa with me knocked out 24 planes. I'm not sure which ones though. Needless to say, the cvs are broken. The player with the cv played well regardless our aa advantage with just the two of us together. This is definitely ridiculous! 20190525_215912_PASC510-Alaska_20_NE_two_brothers.wowsreplay
  16. WanderingGhost

    No witty title this time

    I decided to take a bit of a break, from playing the game, from researching stuff to continue working on my CV thread, all of it. I figured I'd start trying to at least get a couple games in, and see 2 news things in the launcher that I knew I should have just ignored, but couldn't. 8.4 testing, and plans for CV's. But no, I had to give in to temptation and look, and then slam my head against a wall a few times. For all the tune changing you did as to why you did this rework one of the more consistent things was this would be "Easier for you to balance". So 4 months in now - why am I seeing the same stupid mistakes and changes as RTS? Nerfing or buffing the wrongs things, screwing things up worse than they are, changes that in no way accomplish what they are supposed to or make gameplay worse, more frustrating or just plain dumb? You wanted CV players to be jumping right in to action and all - so now you add in a delay, like when we had reloads in RTS, so now it's going to be closer to at least 60 seconds before we can do anything fun and engaging. Gee, thanks, and why is this? Oh, because we spot the teams early, something you were made aware of oh 8 MONTHS OR MORE AGO. Well before it bloody went live. And let's really be honest here - what exactly is it REALLY going to change here? Low ball estimate about 80% of the time we all already know where the enemy team ships are going the CV just confirms it. Two brothers most of the time the team in North Spawn goes to C, the team in South goes to A, a couple ships try and delay the lemming train, and some fool rushes the middle way too early. Pick a map and it typically breaks out that one team mostly goes left, the other mostly right, everyone knows where the DD's are between RPF and them trying to cap unless Radar gets used, gunship cruisers are behind the low islands, DD's are behind islands or lurking in waters depending on which DD it is and the BB's are mostly staying in open water because of how far back they are playing and avoiding any place a DD or maybe a torp armed cruiser is hiding. And quite frankly the "better" the players involved in a match the more bloody predictable it all is. Also as a side note when I took a break to actually play it took nearly 90 seconds on Land of Fire to spot any ships flying in a straight line knowing their general direction with Implacable DB's - they really need more time? And then you have the boost changes - did any of your staff actually think through that this was going to impact ability to dodge AA and ability to attack via change in skills and timing and all that will once more add to the skill gap you sought to close? I'm guessing the answer is no. Decreasing the top speed and raising minimum speed lowers the speed range which means less needed compensation for AA meaning your not dodging it like you used to. Now add in ALL the other things you have added to make it more frustrating to use Rockets and and some TB's and makes that even better because we can no longer try to better stabilize things by using just speed and very small movements to dodge as well. Which, that and the changes in closing rates will throw off all the times we have adapted to and have to relearn, again, all that as well as likely have some adapt faster or better than others and once again just add to the skill gap that seems to be ever growing, again, because of these changes. You again accomplish nothing bloody meaningful other than to make CV's more frustrating, one of your claimed points being you wanted CV's to be more east to access and interesting to more players - this does not help. And then you have the HE bomb changes - more RNG added, increased height of drop for increased fall time meaning more skill required and removing one of the last effective ways to deal with the DD your team lets through cause we can't attack it while trying to dodge it's weapons. I'll be first to admit CV vs DD is screwed up but wanna know why my Lexington is curb stomping Fubuki's? BECAUSE IT'S DROPPING 6 1000 LB BOMBS AT A TIME 3 TIMES AT 9200 DAMAGE WHICH TRANSLATES TO OVER 3K ON PENS PER BOMB AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THE MAYBE 7 DD'S THAT ACTUALLY HAS WORTHWHILE AA. It's the same issue with rockets, with torps, with CV ordnance since inception even in freaking RTS it's ing simple damn math. I hit 1/6 of those bombs that's 1/3-1/7 of the DD's HP depending on tier. So yeah, no matter what 3 attacks it's gonna freaking feel it. It's the same issue on Hak TB's, was the same on Midway's, still the same in general in places the alpha damage is too damn high.For just ing once would you stop trying to screw with accuracy and RNG and let us have accurate attack planes that can hit so we feel like we can actually accomplish something, and just nerf the alpha damage, seriously. And won't have much impact on hitting other ships? Your changing the reticle, RNG dispersion and height they drop at - I've had near max aim attacks on cruisers and BB's lined up perfectly, a couple times target was even parked, and had bombs somehow miss. Any change is going to screw that especially against smaller and more agile cruisers. I'd also like to again point out that also the reason they are getting picked on is they tend to be alone and isolated with weak AA while more and more BB's and CA/L are near untouchable especially when out tiered. Then we have priority AA - you want it to be more effective? Because as is many BB's and cruisers especially tier 8+ aren't butchering squadrons hard enough? Having 0/6 planes from Saipan attacking a lone tier 8 French BB because it's AA shoots them down before they reach escape height isn't enough? Or that I can't see some of the heaviest AA ships till I'm basically in their flak clouds - not even counting the ones that have their own smoke generator. Or the DF AA. Or the catapult fighters that can eviscerate a squadron just like the old broken strafe mechanic because you can't deploy fighters to defend AA shreds them before they even basically spawn in. Not to mention this system is still in such disarray, premium CV's still in need of individual work - and you pushed them back out on sale. Right before hitting them with global nerf hammers. I've already seen people call you out on what that looks like. You people shouldn't have released them in the first place, but no apparently greed got the better of you. And no one considered the optics of "hey, were about to release 50 dollar ships then nerf the hell out of them, does this maybe look bad cause were selling them seemingly strong then making them weaker?" New system - same bad decisions, problems ignored, and trying to fix the problem by working around it instead of direct fixes to it. So why is it again we changed from RTS?
  17. Just tested the CVs on PTS and the speed nerf to planes alone is enough to make me quit CVs altogether. They are now sluggish and uninteresting. I only regret that I believed the hype that premium CVs were final and bought the Graf Zeppelin. I love that ship and waited to get it for a long time. However, it was branded as having fast planes to balance out their fragility. Now the top speed will be cut from 260 knots to 221 period. The confusing nature of the PTS post led me to believe that the speed would be cut only when the boost is active but that is not the case. Speed has received a hard nerf period. I cannot do this anymore. It is my own fault for falling for this trick again after what happened to my YueYang. Go ahead and nerf the CVs again WG. I'm done with them for serious game play. I'll go back to DDs. [Edited]
  18. chitownhustler17

    say it ain't so

    let me begin this by saying upfront that i'm a relatively new player to WoW (about 300 Random Battles). i am also a below-average player so don't go rushing off to check my stats so you can verify the legitimacy of my point. i'm saving you the trouble. i recently uninstalled World of Tanks after becoming disenchanted with the directions WG have taken it, and came to WoW hoping to find a better experience. although i've found the community to be more pleasant than WoT, and the pace of the game more to my liking, i am having misgivings about the game due to the excess number of CV's. i rarely see a battle with no CV's and even rarer do i see one with less than 2. further as i move up in tiers, it's not rare that i see THREE CV's per team; frequently in matches without a full team of 12 players on each team. o i forced myself to not race up thru the Tech Tree to higher tiers. i want to groom commanders skills and my own understanding of the game and it's mechanics before i move up. as of this post i have up to tier 6 and mostly USN Cruisers. that being said, i'm on the cusp of moving up to tier 7 now, and am trying more DD's and even an occasional BB, but i find i'm having a major problem. as i move up in the tiers; it seems like this game is nothing more than "Dodge the CV aircraft". seriously, i don't seem to possess the skills necessary to do anything else BUT dodge enemy carrier planes. swarms of them. i've got strong AA builds on my Pensacola and Dallas and it's rare that i don't down 20 planes or more but it's NO FUN. it is way way worse than the arty problem in WoT IMHO. i spend the entire match dodging and weaving and trying to stay with a group of friendlies but in the end i often end up with a sunken ship and no damage done except those planes i shot down. therefore, i am left with one rhetorical question and that is wth? i find myself looking for something better again. say it ain't so Joe
  19. Howdy salts, My interest in the game has now waned to the point of perhaps no return. I never have liked cv's in this game from the very beginning, but it was ok because only 10-25% of matches had a cv. Cv's spelled the end of traditional surface warfare in reality and it has done the same to this game for me and more than a few others. At least limit cv's to one a side. One match after the tenth battle in a row with 2 cv's I quit the match out of frustration. Please WG 1 cv per team across all tiers. Not to mention the fact that cv's have changed the game meta entirely to a passive blobfest in most cases. Argh!
  20. One of the often-overlooked changes in the recent-ish patches was the addition of a 6s a relay delay to radar, where anything spotted on radar takes 6s to be lit up to allies to shoot it. Meanwhile, one of the big common complaints with CVs is their ability to spot things easily and effectively, particularly DDs, which rely on stealth instead of health (CV complaint threads are easily more common than the next several most common threads, combined). The extension of this spotting delay to anything planes spot seems to be a logical step. As far as gameplay is concerned, this would give ships more time to react to being spotted, perhaps hiding a citadel a bit better, getting a chance to smoke up, or finding cover before fire starts pouring in. It would also mean the window for firing on targets during the opening spotting run will be less usable, since the CV would actually have to stay for a bit to get spotting damage. Any thoughts?
  21. In this new meta ( I am trying to be nice) explain the rational for only having a 60 sec duration on catapult fighters now. Even on lines that were in the past strong AA ships, and even with premium consumable purchased, still 60 secs.... which any cv can wait out.
  22. warheart1992

    Fixing Carriers - Five Tweaks

    Introduction Hello there, and welcome to my post on how to improve and fix CVs. There has certainly been lot of talk about CVs, so I decided to provide my input and try helping a few souls in need. I believe WG as well as you my fellow forumites should take notice; the solutions I am suggesting could easily help with your personal life. I won't take too long, my solution is in points in the spoiler. CVs and how to fix them: But is the solution really that easy? Speaking from personal experience, yes it is. In addition, as practice makes perfect, so will you be able to constantly improve in CVs and tackle any competition, while still being respectful and not ruining anyone's experience. Furthermore, being good at CVs is very rewarding so there is a sense of pride in them as they help you succeed. Anyway, thank you for taking a look at the solutions and tips I have offered, I hope you all benefit from it.
  23. Drunken_Irishman444

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    Who else is tired of being perma-spotted (despite the air conceal buff), perma-set on fire, perma-flooded, and literally everything else that comes with not being able to punish CV's. I for one have had a solid handful of fun games since the CV update came out, most of which involved games where there weren't Cvs. DDs don't push because they can't. Because of that everyone else doesn't push. BB's that sit at the back have all the AA power (go figure). Games that aren't decisively decided, come down to a few CV players at the end of the match and a few helpless souls that still have some health that wait it out until the enemy CVs die. The game got stale since ranked ended, the one last safe haven for this game away from the monotony.
  24. warheart1992

    No Fun Allowed

    Inspired by the numerous threads on Matchmaker, CVs and DDs, I decided to give a go at creating a bit of related meme content. This is just poking fun, no hard feelings towards anyone or class, the sky isn't falling . Please don't turn the thread into another dumpster fire. It's purpose is to have a fun time. I call this one the Kidd experience, at least for me: This is how it feels when you drive one of the AA capable DDs when there are CVs around: Share some of your memes or fun pics from these past few days, I did my part .
  25. I experimented to see how far the arming distance is on both loadouts, and you can see how the arm time might be one of the factors really hurting the 4 drop right now. Should this be changed or should something else about the 4 drop be improved?
×