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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

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 68 results

  1. Okay, I've really hit my breaking point on people using AA ratings and bringing them up. If you look at the AA ratings, it's such an obscure number with so little meaning you think your AA is one thing yet you slaughter or get slaughtered by planes. So I'm going to give an overly simplified way to get an idea what your going to do to a CV's planes but it will require math on your end (unless I figure out an easy way to do it on a google sheet and/or people are willing to donate cash for the amount of time it will take me to run through every ship, CV, possible setup) Simply put what truly determines if your AA is good is how long planes are in your AA, and how much damage is done every second. It's why Kremlin at tier 10 outperforms Montana at downing planes, and Yamato seems pathetic. longer range is better and obviously, more damage is better, but truth be told you want both. Also, these are a general guideline - not insanely specific numbers (some planes will be faster, slower, more HP, less HP). Tier Speed (km/s) HP per plane 10 .5 km every second 2000 8 .45 km every second 1800 6 .4 km every second 15-1600 4 .35 km every second ~1400 So lets take Benson, tier 8 USN DD and put it against a tier 6 CV. You have the B hull, no flags/skills/modz. Long range is 5.8 km at 77 damage every second, short range is 2 km at 60 damage every second. Tier 6 average is .4 km and 1500 HP on the low end. Your long range AA will fire at them on the way in 14 times at 77 damage, and short range 5 times at 60 - roughly 1378 on the first attack run, just short of knocking a plane down. The C hull while taking away a little from long range and a lot from short range adds 49 DP at 3.5 km, meaning 8 seconds of damage - the overall change being an increase to 1525 - a better chance you down a plane in the first pass. Obviously DFAA (50% more damage) and sectors (varies) increase or decrease these numbers, but that is your rough baseline of what your ship can do against a CV of the tier without you doing anything. For any who want to do all the math for the most specific numbers - aircraft damage = AA Range/([plane speed in knots*2.6854]*1000) * DPS. The first part gets you time in AA, and then you multiply it by DPS number for that range. It's also a good idea of how long till a CV can hit you again - and to track them down by range. The number in the chart are if a CV can maintain maximum speed on planes (usually done on attack runs) - so generally, if a CV is hitting you every 90 seconds and is tier 6 - odds are he's roughly 6-9 grid squares away in the direction of the planes. Basically while there is some map size overlap - takes roughly 10 seconds for plane at a tier to cover a grid square in their tier range at top speed. That little chart is easier, and while not perfect - will give you a far better idea just what your AA can do against a CV than the nonsense port rating ever will.
  2. LoveBote

    Official WG CV poll

    I just recieved a popup inviting me to take part in a poll, asking me questions such as 'Do you like tier 8 CVs", of course I said yes... Anyone else get an in game invitation, recently, for a poll on CV popularity? being polled on whether or not I like CVs, nearly a year since the Rework, is not very reassuring, about the state of the game. I don't think I have ever been polled on dds, cruisers or battleships.
  3. Final8ty

    A complete joke.

    So a single DB drop did 14.7k to my shima with double fires.
  4. TheLastRollOfToiletPaper

    WG broke ranked with their obtuse cvs

    So the new arms race mode with carriers is absolutely broken. The hp buff perk for CVs is set to 1% of squadron hp/second, which means the planes are nigh on impossible to shoot down. And people on this forum thinks WG plays and test their game... There are guys not losing a single plane once they get a buff or 2. GG WG spreadsheet...
  5. If you are a WoWS player and you classify yourself as a "hater of CVs" then I have this message for you: If you are going to report players who play CVs simply for playing a CV, then go right ahead.....all you are doing is inflating your ego. We CV players will continue to sail our carriers into battle and fly our airplanes regardless. The Karma system is only a numbering system anyway. Arguing for "the removal of all carriers from the game" is asking for all of World of Warships to be one-sided: battleships are king, and cruisers and destroyers are their slaves. Remove CVs, and you remove the biggest threats to battleships. Remove CVs, and you make every single AA gun mount on all ships useless. Remove CVs, and you make Fighter Consumable worthless...Remove CVs, and you will earn less ribbons per game....Remove CVs, and you will make AA cruiser like the Atlanta, Flint, Smolensk, Worcester, nothing but "large destroyers". Remove CVs and you will negate the uniqueness that the USS Kidd has and the upcoming Pan-European destroyers. Remove CVs, and practically all ships will be making their islands their waifus. In other words, CVs keep enemy ships on their toes by encouraging players to stick together and therefore worth together instead of galivanting off to a single capture point by themselves with no support...and get themselves easily sunk as a result. We CV players do not have it easy when it comes to playing CVs, let me tell you..... CV players can have bad games just like every other battleship, destroyer, or cruiser player. It is certainly not possible to always win when in a CV. CV players DO NOT get 100% win rates. Yes, CVs are powerful, but their presence alone does not guarantee victory. It very much depends on how many AA cruisers their are, how many battleships have good AA or bad AA, how many DDs are smart enough and clever enough to use islands, smoke plumes, their low concealment to keep stealthy from a CV's planes..... the success/failure of a CV greatly depends on the what assortment of surface ships have spawned, or whether or not the CV is uptiered or not. A Tier VIII CVs usually have a hard time fighting against Tier X surface ships, and Tier VI carriers get easily swamped by the AA of Tier VIII ships. Hell, even in my USS Midway I get deplaned in a Tier X match half of the time! If you truly want to understand how to successfully fight CVs, then I suggest that you play CVs for yourselves and learn how they work. If you do that, then I promise you will get better at combating enemy CVs in your surface ships.
  6. Like them or not, the community is really torn about CVs. I'm on the hate side, but I think i have a legitimate solution on how to keep them in the game, but make them 1) more rewarding 2) Increased danger 3) strategic in way that benefits all classes. This is my gamification of what I learned from watching a youtube video on the Battle of Midway and the struggles the CVs actually faced at the time. 1) Range Currently there is no range restriction. You can get in a squadron and just fly forever until you fire a few times or get shot down. There is no urgency to using the squad and no detriment to going to the wrong location or just flying forever to find that last DD when the rest of your team is dead. Where you fly should matter, and unplanned random discovery flights are unfair to classes that rely on stealth. The ideal distance would be between 14km - 18km depending on the type of plane used / country. This would become a stat that differentiates the carriers. They have stats now, but they all feel about the same. Range +1 km would also be a good captains skill as long as it's a choice between another valuable stat like faster flying or additional plane in a squad in the 4th tier. 2) Invincibility for average intelligence As long as you aren't a complete idiot, staying alive in a CV is really easy for the first 5 minutes minimum, and many matches it's easy to never even feel threatened in an even match. Decisions should have consequences. The range forces the CVs to move forward to deploy a squad (stay with me CV players). The idea that a CV isn't under threat during a battle is not based on anything but a lack of a realistic mechanic that works. 3) Plans instead of Spam CVs don't have 3 fully geared squads ready to go at any given time. Choices are made in advance. It should be at least as time consuming to attach a torpedo to a plane as it is swap between HE and AP. This also increases the value of pre-selecting the right type of plane to suit your current objective. Now, the CVs benefit from DD spotting more than they prevent DDs from being able to spot. Class balance is returning, and DDs are being given a chance to be DDs. Launching ships requires nothing right now and it shouldn't be so boring. When CVs are maneuvering, you aren't launching planes. Ideally, a squad should be taking off into the wind, but I would accept that it has to be moving at a minimum between 12kps and 18kps to give make launching a squad more meaningful. You can't just sit behind the island and spam from your magical deck of 3 ready to launch squads. There should also be time added when an unused ship needs to be stripped down from one use and converted. 4) In real life, explosions aren't an issue you solve with a signal When prepping for a strike, the CV is most vulnerable due to high-explosives being more exposed to shells, fire and shrapnel. This real life danger isn't represented. Shooting a CV feels like shooting a cinder block that operates separate from it's bombardment. CVs should be more susceptible to damage when struck on the deck with a squad being prepped. Maybe you thought having 40 torpedos on the deck that you might use later is save until one gets hit and a chain reaction kills you for littering your deck with explosives. This only works if there is flight setup time, but just adding arbitrary boring time onto the game feels like it would be arbitrary and boring... Call it redundant. Now, you start with a set amount of planes, and you can queue up their equipment set. Best of all, you can make choices. 5) Strategy and consequences Send all 50 at once for a massive attack, but now you have no planes equipped to be a fighter, so you are extra weak if the other CV comes after you. Might want to have 5 dressed out fighters on standby to defend your ship. Might not want to risk everything as you can the attack would be bigger, but not necessarily more ships sunk. That will be the most challenging gameplay balance. What is the incentive to risking more planes? Maybe you need 10 dive bombers and a 10 fighter escort. This is going to really ramp up CV strategy and create a higher skill gap then someone crosstorping using 1 move over and over again to set damage records, without ever being in danger of running out of ships or someone shooting their boat. If you lose a plane, it's gone and there will not be a magic plane building factory in the CV anymore. This might also help with that nightmare scenario when after a tough battle there is a team that has a DD and say a Cruiser both low on health, and the other has a CV that had 100 planes shot down and can now make a few more to kill the Cruiser with a DB and the DD with rockets... make from magic. If the CV stashed a couple away for an emergency, that's great, but he would have to sacrifice more defense or offense throughout if he doesn't utilize all of his planes earlier when they could have tilted the scales. 6) Fighters as spotters Sure, but they run out of gas and have to fly back, which means if you want them up for more than a few seconds, they have to start close to the CV. no more dropping a fighter on A 10 because a ship has terrible detectability by air and can't shoot the fighter down 12km away. This also would ideally remove the dpm types from crapping out a fighter on their way to flying on magic fuel. if you want a fighter, go for it, It will leave from your deck if you have one queued up, and it will probably die, then it's gone forever. Now they matter and aren't just another way to dump on the DDs trying to play. 7) DPM These changes obviously reduce the frequency of attacks, but they allow for bigger and more complex attacks. Fighters on a BB can get their butts kicked by the 10 that came along, but those 10 will probably get shot down. Bigger attack, bigger risk. 8) The dumbest thing The dumbest thing that is effective on this game is loading a plane, taking off, then immediately firing a third of the arms you loaded into the ocean so those planes will be ready faster... I get it. It's a game. But please remove this. This had to be on the list of nonsense you wanted to get out of the game, but ran out of runway to fix. You just sold a bunch of 'ships' for 25k dubloons... for Christmas. Make some runway, we deserve it and the guys that bought the PR paid for it. Best part is it's not a total overhaul. Rather than boost, you have range, you might consider burning range faster in exchange for boost, but the logic is minimal, the CVs gain more character, the DDs get to play the game again and if you suck... (the best part)... we can kill you without having to take ourselves out of the game to do it. 9) The spotter plane Rarely did a fighter plane circle over AA and take it until they died. CVs would send out spotters. They had a big area to cover, usually flew out like bicycle spokes then cut a few degrees and came back. Less likely to be shot down, but less likely to radio back while in fight. Last knows update when the spotters return to the ship.
  7. https://time.com/5768426/uss-miller-navy/ extract from the article (click to read more in you are interested) "The U.S. Navy announced Sunday that it’s naming an aircraft carrier after World War II hero Mess Attendant 2nd Class Doris Miller, making him the first African-American to have an aircraft carrier named in his or her honor. Miller is noted for his heroics during the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, when he took control of a machine gun on the U.S.S. West Virginia and fired back at Japanese planes. He later received the Navy Cross for valor, making him the first African-American to receive the honor. The U.S.S Miller, a destroyer escort, was previously named after him. That vessel was decommissioned in 1991. “Doris Miller stood for everything that is good about our nation, and his story deserves to be remembered and repeated wherever our people continue the watch today,” Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly said in a press statement."
  8. Charlie2Pen

    CV vs DD balance

    so I've been playing for four years and took an eight month break to come back and find that CV's have made destroyers completely obsolete. I did my homework and have seen that this has been an issue since the rework just after i stopped playing and has been hot fixed over and over and yet I'm still getting 1 shot by rockets within two minutes of the game starting. if i even look at a flag the wrong way i get 2 fires, broken engine and rudder along with the 3/4ths of my health it hit me for. how is this considered balanced? I know people must get tired of hearing dd players complain but I'm not even a dedicated destroyer player i only have 2 T10 dd's working on my 3rd. i just think there needs to be some compromise, obviously you cant have dds be immune or they go carrier hunting and then that's unbalanced but the game isn't in a healthy spot as it is. this is my first time ever posting a topic, never even commented on one i usually believe in sucking it up and just dealing with it but i really want to know if its just me not being good with dd's and it really isn't that bad, or is this still an issue?
  9. https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-tier-viii-british-aircraft-carrier-indomitable-review/ "The Indomitable is a low impact, unidimensional and boring ship to play. Pretty much any tier VIII carrier will do a better job at dealing damage and will also have a much better impact since they don’t rely heavily on fire damage. As an experienced CV player, I simply cannot recommend this ship. If the bombs had a better penetration like on the Audacious or that the strike groups would be bigger, she would be good but here… Graf Zeppelin looks good compared to her." quoted from the Daily Bounce review full article here : https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-tier-viii-british-aircraft-carrier-indomitable-review/
  10. Hello Captains, I'm wondering if somebody can provide me with a succinct (doesn't have to be too detailed) comparison of the pros/cons of the CV lines, as they play in the current meta, or point me to a thread that does so? I haven't actually played any CVS in a long time, but on the off-chance that I wanted to dabble in them again, I just wanted to know what I was getting myself in for with the different CV lines. Thanks 👍
  11. HeavensAuthority

    Clan Recruitment! Open!

    Hello All! Submarines For The Win clan is open to taking applications! We are laid back and casual, as we are new it will take some time to get things rolling ; however, if you want something new and want to build it with us we are happy to help you and have you!! As the name suggests! When submarines officially hit the live server, we will be playing them! Of course we play all classes. We welcome anyone who just want to have fun! We accept all players regardless of skill level, we are a friendly group of people! Message me in game or here on the fourms
  12. just played 7 games in a row where i was the DD and totally destroyed by CV's constantly getting spotted and attack aircraft chunking me for 1/3 and sometimes 1/2 of my hp forcing my smoke and just waiting for me to leave, this is causing low DD games and anti-fun gameplay please do something
  13. The title just about sums it up. I haven't been playing the game much recently, so here's what I'm wondering. 1: In the new submarine mode, will the Hydroacoustic Search consumable extend the underwater detection range of subs? Will it allow you to see where a sub is even if they aren't on the surface or at periscope depth? 2: Will CV players get the option to fit one of their attack squadrons with depth charges? 3: I've noticed that some cruisers, e.g. the Atlanta, have depth charges modeled on them as well. Will it just be DDs that have depth charge capabilities, or will some cruisers that were designed with ASW in mind be able to use them too? 4: Some of the DDs in the game were equipped with forward-firing Hedgehog anti-sub mortars at some point during their careers. Will those be implemented into the game, if not now then eventually? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  14. So, seeing as they lowered (sort of) most of the shop prices, gave me a 30% coupon and I could free up the cash, I bought myself Ark Royal - something great to have especially as the ship that helped sink the Bismark. Which of course I thought meant a bit more care and attention would be paid to it but of course - why we would do that? The lengths to get other ships right, but disregard it for CV's. I just can't understand some of these decisions in balance and history. The Balance - Seriously, what the hell tier are these planes supposed to be? The Skua is tier 5 it seems, as the starter on Furious, but the Swordfish is, for whatever insane reason, the bomber on Hermes. Further adding to this quandary - the HP. You wanna say Hermes uses tier 5's, or Ark Royal uses tier 4's - fine. The Skua is the same at least but the Swordfish has around 300 less HP. On a group level, yes, they have more HP than Furious's, but are slower and even less agile meaning more time in AA, and more hits. On the subject of speed - 100 knots? As it is that can be slow and painful on the tier 4 maps, that are actually close in small maps. 100 knots on maps meant for tier 8 ships - it takes that much longer to get anywhere - and is even more 'fun' when you have tier 8 CV's to deal with as well. 40 lb bombs - So, lets even forget for just a second, that the RP-3 actually had almost double the explosives than these, and that actually even the common shells of USN DD's with the 5/38 guns that we call HE had 1-2 pounds more, with some of the same filling but I'm assuming 'Balance' is why these magically do 500 more damage per hit than those rounds and nearly double the RP-3's - Why are these even back in the game? They were removed from Tier 4 because they are ineffective. So because you added another plane per strike you thought that'd fix the issue? BB's still shrug this off like it's nothing, hell, some of the cruisers this thing sees do. A lower tier battle with tier 5's, some low AA tier 6's - yeah, 7 hits have put a pretty good hurting on a cruiser. The amount of bombs, decent for ensuring at least a hit on a DD, though not what I'd call 'effective' against them. Now if the idea were that this is a cruiser hunting ship - great, I'm all about CV's having something in particular they hunt better - but the key is actually giving it tools to do so regardless of tier. That means planes that can actually withstand tier 8 cruiser AA decently, with somewhat better speed and y'know, bombs that against some of the higher tier cruisers don't shatter against deck plating. The History - I don't really have a way to sort this one because a lot of it loops together. Case in point - The ship, as completed, only had 4 of her 8 barrel cannons, the other 2 were added later - the rough date seems to point to around May 1941 - when she hunted down Bismarck - a fact that I suppose goes with her getting the camo options she does. But here's the problem - the Skua was pretty much pulled from service in 1940, with a handful staying around in early 1941 in places - but by the time of getting those added cannons and going to hunt the Bismarck - she was operating Fulmar's alongside the Swordfish, not Skua's. But if the idea is 1939/40 Ark Royal, well, you have a couple extra guns it shouldn't actually have. And really, taking them away won't hurt as the AA in general is pretty pathetic anyway, I doubt there would be a truly noticeable change. Also, as I said, the Skua was pulled in 1940 - it never saw usage of the RP-3 at all, it wasn't even in actual service at the same time. Now - actually finding accounts of the Fulmar using them, again, seems to have not been a thing but it was operational when they were introduced at least - and the Firefly was basically a modified Fulmar and it did carry them so far less of a stretch. If your team even just wants to copy/paste the firefly and just call it a Fulmar and not edit it/build it from the ground up - I'll even take that at this point. But then there is even what it has. While we finally get the Swordfish as a TB, it is again a level bomber, while the Skua, one of the only real DB's the Royal Navy actually had and used, least that they made themselves, is again a rocket armed plane. Look, if you gave the Skua all those 40 lb bombs yeah, you'd be wrong historically - but your already wrong with the rockets this at least makes it a bomber, better yet if you actually have it being a DB. While the Swordfish did in fact carry rockets and could fill that role. But the bigger sin here is I think missed opportunity. You have SAP shells in development - why not bombs, especially as the Skua was armed with a 500 lb SAP bomb? Doubly so cause that's actually the type IJN used other than HE, especially as the AP bombs you have in game weren't used on DB's they were limited to the TB's and B7A, with the TB's acting as level bombers, jury's out on the B7A. Make it actually unique to the game and as a test bed for something new that can add more flavour options because there are more CV lines we can and should add once we get the rework fixed up more.Maybe it's like Italian SAP rounds, maybe it's like an HE bomb with IFHE, maybe something else - like a British AP shell but with a small fire chance. A (more) historically accurate ship, testing a concept that can be used for others. And it's not like the Fulmar is a high performance plane for the tier, if anything fits around 5 a bit better than 6, especially as the Hurricanes replaced them. And look, I'm not here saying the ships bad, a weak AA cruiser on it's own - it's gonna have a bad time those bombers start hammering it. The 3 TB's are nice, again, when you have targets with not that great AA. It's one of the few CV's that actually feels comfortable because of it's shorter time to replace those losses it takes, still can feel them pretty hard in higher tier fights though. Against tier 5 and some 6 ships, pretty terrifying stuff, against other 6's and 7 and 8's..... not quite as much. But at this point - that's a frustrating 'par for the course' when it comes to tier 6 CV's and well, CV's in general. Against the lower tier ships and some same tier, you may as well be the grim reaper, against higher tier and some same tier, banging your head on things trying to actually damage a ship sometimes taking 10+ minutes of constant attacks to kill it. I'm glad to see it finally added, even if I think it should still be in the tech tree maybe around tier 7 but hey more reason to toss in a "what if it had survived further" version just have to think up a name unless we wanna call the premium version Ark Royal 1939 or 1940 or whatever. While it seems 'fine' short term I have concerns long term, especially cause some AA still needs buffing even if others it see's need a nerf. And while yes, the current NA stats look amazing at under 300 battles, I know part of that is skewed by dropping in 10+ point commanders, and the other is that other than people that got it RNG from a box, maybe some collectors, that most of the people who have it are likely those of us that play CV's a lot, and are actually kinda good at it or better, and can take a ship that has issues but work around them and do well in them making it look better than it really is (though a rocket hit detonating I think it was a Nurnberg from around 70% hp certainly helps too). And that if we ever get to a point where it's not us few specialists or stubborn fools and is actually a class played by a larger group - that it's going to have quite a few issues. @Umbaretz - any insight you can give why these choices were made? Especially some of the history stuff because honestly - it's really starting to get irritating that the new norm is seemingly "Any surface ship, especially premiums, as absolute historical as possible with all the right modules and all" while CV's is "screw it just throw whatever planes on it and screw history and all too even if it's not for gameplay or balance".
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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).
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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/
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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?
×