Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'essex'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 5 results

  1. Hello everyone, i tried to search for info regarding those ships but coudnlt find. Is there a way to get Essex? Will it be available again? Is Enterprise listed to come back at least in rumors? How much time she was offered? She came again some time after beeing removed? How many times? Prediction regarding German carriers tree? I mainly like to play carriers, so i am trying to get every single one of them. There are some ships i see on blitz but i want to get in here as i mainly play on wows not blitz. Why people call Aircraft Carriers as CV and not AC?
  2. captain_fearless

    Where are the other carriers?

    When are we gonna get the rest of the carriers after half of the Japanese and American cv tech tree were snapped away? I wanna see an alternate cv line, maybe one that ditches rocket planes and instead has improved bombs or have better plane regeneration. I don’t wanna see them come back as premium ships does any body heard any news on this?
  3. In my last post on this subject (CV Play) the CV Rework was just coming out, and I said I'd keep an open mind, and try it out for awhile, then see how it went. Well, here's my take pm it, at this point (6 Apr 19): The current Update to Carrier Play has caused quite a few players I know personally, as well as others I chat with during matches to simply refuse further CV Play, and many former CV players have even sold-off their carriers in disgust. I have tried to keep an open mind, hoping further "fixes" will make CV Play viable and enjoyable, but so far, have found it to be neither, and in fact, an extremely annoying WASTE of my precious gaming time, particularly when my Tier VIII CV is pitted vs. Tier IX and X ships—even a single, lone CL wipes out my planes before they can drop a single bomb. The CV aircraft flight model continues to be "jerky" (due to the time compression needed) and overall, CV Play has become increasingly "unrealistic" with each new "fix", causing some players resort to unrealistic "work-arounds" to "game the system" --departing even further from logic and historical practice so as to succeed in the faulty CV Play system. Although with practice, I will no doubt develop the proper technique for accurate aerial attacks-- while losing most or all of my attacking squadron by the end of my 2nd pass-- in its current state, I doubt I will ever find CV Play "enjoyable," much less "rewarding" and thus, will avoid it, keeping a token CV for "Spotting" tasks and little else. I have so far resisted selling-off my last CV in disgust, and have not enjoyed even a single mission yet. HOWEVER— aside from a much-needed toning down the fantastic hyper-lethality of AA in general, with some minor "fixes" using existing game mechanics, some of the more frustrating aspects of Carrier Play for both carrier and surface combatant players might be alleviated, as follows: SUGGESTION #1: British Dive Bombers should be allowed to carry, at minimum, 500-lb/230 kg bombs, and ideally, 1,000-lb/500 kg and heavier bombs, just as they did in real life. No aviation force would ever seek to attack armored warships with piddly little 250-lb General Purpose bombs, though they may have been adequate vs. small craft (E-boats, F-lighters, armed trawlers) and coastal freighters-- 500 lb bombs were the rule vs. smaller combatants, such as frigates and destroyers, and were the minimum vs. armored warships. E.g., in a 1944 attack, Fairey Barracudas attacked the battleship Tirpitz with with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, scoring 14 direct hits, which even so, only put the Tirpitz out of action for 8 weeks. Had they used mere 250-lb bombs to which the game currently limits them, there likely would've been no significant damage whatsoever. [Note that of 42 attacking Barracudas, only ONE was lost to enemy AA-- a far cry from the uber-hyper-collossal lethality of AA as it currently exists, and I'm primarily a surface ship operator, and yet I'm embarrassed by just how unbelievably lethal even my little Leander's AA is-- enemy planes just melt away and do nothing, and I've removed all my AA builds, upgrades, and skills-- they're no longer needed, and I pretty much ignore attacking planes.] SUGGESTION #2: Have the ENTIRE attack aircraft squadron, whether Torpedo, Dive Bomber, or Rocket Aircraft launch its ordnance near-simultaneously with the "Squadron Leader" (the central aircraft on the screen the carrier player "flies"). When the player hits his mouse key to "launch ordnance", remaining aircraft of the flight also launch their ordnance, but with a delay of, say, 0.1 seconds to 5 seconds. This will prevent unrealistic "robotic perfection" in the resulting bomb or torpedo pattern that surface ship players used to complain about. In the same manner, the Squadron Leader's (center aircraft) places its strike at the exact center of the "crosshairs" (or torpedo arc), subject to normal "dispersion", and remaining aircraft of the squadron launch their ordnance subject to dispersion from that point, as well possibly a short time delay, just as a volley of warship shells deviates within its "Maximum Dispersion" ellipse already. This is already included in the game mechanics, I believe, but it should be able to be "improved" via certain "Captain Skills" and/or via ship "Upgrades" (see further below). E.g., for dive bombers, bombs other attacking aircraft would have a similar "dispersion" within the "ellipse" that appears on the aiming diagram the player uses, and torpedoes deviate a few mils left or right (randomly) from the "center" of their assigned point in torpedo squadron formation. I.e., torpedoes would also have a "dispersion" of a few mils, left or right, and in time of drop, for each torpedo the squadron successfully drops. Thus, mass torpedo drops will have an appearance similar to a volley of shells, with each individual torpedo deviating slightly, at random, within the Maximum Dispersion parameters for the ship/squadron, just as in real life, and as surface ship shells do already. This would eliminate the unrealistic (and silly) game mechanism that allows only 1 or 2 bombs/torpedoes to "launch" from an entire flight of 4 to 8 aircraft, while the remaining aircraft of the squadron do nothing but fly along as targets, waiting their turn on the next target pass (which is utterly unrealistic, and NEVER done in combat). But it would also prevent the target ship from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of "un-dodgeable" torpedoes or bombs, as many will certainly miss, unless the attacking player is very lucky (as per warship volleys now). So— having the entire squadron attack at once, but with a slightly varying "time of drop" by say, 0.1 to 5 seconds after the "Leader" aircraft (reduced by certain "Crew Skills", as well instituting a "Maximum Dispersion" variance for torpedoes, etc.), targeted ships won't be overwhelmed by a concentrated "perfect" swarm of torpedoes, especially as they "shoot holes" into the attacking formation, and carrier aircraft will be far less exposed to the (already excessively lethal) ship AA defenses, but make attacks like their historical counterparts did, and with similar results.As a starting point, I suggest that the "mil dispersion" for Torpedo Aircraft be placed at +/-10 mils dispersion for early (Tier IV) carrier planes, and reduced slightly for each carrier tier above that, i.e., +/-8 mils @ Tier VI, 7 mils @ Tier VIII, and +/-6 mils @ Tier X, to reflect improved aiming equipment, torpedoes, aircraft, and training of torpedo pilots as the war progressed. Note that this mil dispersion is from each individual plane's position in the FORMATION, not from the Squadron Leader's aim point, as torpedo planes attacked in an on-line formation, spaced at intervals of 50 to 100 meters or more, ensuring a wide "spread" to increase the possibility of a hit for the squadron as a whole. Note that this also assured that it was virtually impossible for every torpedo, or even most of the torpedoes in the squadron's "volley" to hit the target, as many would automatically miss, depending on the target ship's relative course and subsequent reaction. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian) is a measure of angle, typically used in ballistics, i.e., a minute fraction of a circle. Easy to look up, if you're unfamiliar.]kills such as "Basic Firing Training" and "Advanced Firing Training" could be modified to give air squadrons a tighter Maximum Dispersion pattern, by, say, 2 mils each, as well as a "tighter" ordnance drop time relative to the Squadron Leader, say, by 1 second each. Thus a Tier VIII torpedo squadron with both Basic and Advanced firing training would improve its Maximum Dispersion to +/-6 mils, left or right, and drop their torpedoes within 0.0 to 3 seconds of the Squadron Leader's torpedo. For Dive Bombers, the Maximum Dispersion ellipse (that already exists) could be reduced in a similar manner, by say 5 mils "tighter" for both Basic and Advanced Firing Training, each. Thus, a dive bomber squadron with both skills would have its Maximum Dispersion ellipse reduced by 10 mils width and length. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian") is a measure of angle used in ballistics , surveying, etc. I.e., a tiny fractional "slice", if you will, of a circle. Easy to look up if you're unfamiliar.] "Sight Stabilization" Skill would remain as-is; "Aiming Systems Modification-1" might be extended to include reduced aircraft ordnance Maximum Dispersion as well. Later-war (Tier VIII and X) aircraft should be able to attack from higher up, and at much faster airspeeds, as improved torpedoes obviated the need for very low, very slow torpedo drops to prevent destruction of the torpedo. SUGGESTION #3: Aircraft Spotting of Surface Ships— THE PROBLEM: Aircraft are able to spot an enemy ship, so that other ships can fire upon it too easily and in real time, and yet, the range for aircraft spotting of an enemy ship is so limited that a flight of planes often loses sight of its target between passes. Currently, aircraft not only reveal far too much information to allied players, enabling any enemy ship they spot to be fired upon by all; they are also often taken under intense AA fire without even being able to spot the enemy ship that is firing upon them. DISCUSSION: Carrier aircraft of the period were totally unable to provide more than an enemy ship type and rough location and course to distant stations, and typically were, at most, in radio contact only with their own ship's Combat Information Center, assuming it was even in radio range, and long-range radios of the day were often Morse Code key sets, not voice comms, and the enemy ship type and course reported was typically vague at best, and more than not, inaccurate. So as to go undetected, attack aircraft typically flew on "radio listening silence" until commencing their attack, could not communicate with other ships in real time, and went silent again for their return to their carrier, so as to not reveal its location. SOLUTION: To reflect this and improve Aircraft Spotting of Ships, non-spotter aircraft should be able to see enemy surface ships well before they enter the enemy's AA zone— but unable to pass anything more than that ship's type and location for at least 6-12 seconds afterward. Thus, non-spotter, attack aircraft and fighters should UNABLE to spot targets spot enemy ships in real time as if they were a surface ship—they could only reveal an enemy ship's basic type (not name), and only on the Mini Map. Sighting of surface ships by non-spotter aircraft should provide a player's allies ONLY a "shaded red/dashed red" outline of an enemy ship on the Mini Map ONLY, in exactly the same way an enemy ship obscured by bad weather, or spotted by others beyond one's ship's sighting range is currently shown on the Mini Map. Such "spotting" should be revealed to friendly players only after a slight delay— of say, 6 to 10 seconds, to reflect the time required for an aircraft's "home" ship to pass enemy location data to other friendly ships. Spotting Aircraft Use and aspects would continue unchanged. PROBLEM: Overly Lethal AA's Severe Impact on Game Balance: AA is so lethal now that I pretty much ignore incoming planes unless they're from a Tier X CV. The rest just "evaporate" and even if they hit me, they do about as much damage as an 8-inch shell strike, and torp hits virtually never flood. When operating a CV, I suffer from having my planes wiped out on approach to higher-tier and even sometimes to lower-tier ships. My planes are often "surprised" by hidden enemy ships and downed before they can escapey, even with Engine Boost and calling for Fighters to help absorb attacks. Such hyper-lethal AA guarantees that I can never even make it into the upper half of scorers on my team, and am almost always at or close to the bottom. SOLUTION A: Have dual-purpose guns (e.g., Atlanta's 5" guns; the 105mm dual-purpose guns of Prinz Eugen or Tirpitz; 100mm guns of Akizuki…) either fire upon surface targets, or vs. aerial targets, BUT NOT BOTH at the same time. The player must choose, or let the ship's AI decide— When under aerial attack, it fires all guns vs. attacking aircraft, or at least all guns on the "Priority AA" Side, unless the player chooses otherwise, by clicking on a surface target. Medium and Short-range AA guns, of course, would continue to defend the ship, as usual. SOLUTION B: Halve the Hit Probability of all ships— Really now, Continuous Damage Ph's of 88% and 95% (Tier VIII) and 100% (Tier X) are ridiculous for that era, and even for today. Leave Continuous Damage and Burst Radius Damage as is, but entire squadrons vanishing as they approach a lone Leander CL is just awful. Even if this is done, I predict that another "halving" will be needed in the future to bring CV Play into balance with surface ships. This will work, and be balanced as well, if the changes above are implemented I think. SOLUTION C: Stop listening to whiny surface ship players that complain they "…can never see an enemy CV, and therefore can't fight vs. such an "unseen enemy"— That's the just way it was, and is. A ship fights vs. an enemy CV's AIRCRAFT, as the enemy CV is hundreds of kilometers away, not lurking on a tiny map, trying to avoid surface detection and destruction by nearby enemy surface ships, as in the game. In all history, only three (3!) CVs are recorded as lost to enemy surface gunfire. If anything, CV players should be whining about the tiny maps. But don't think because I say this that I'm a CV fan boy, or even "enthusiast"— as, so far, I hate CV Play, and plan to run a CV only as a last resort for a battle task, as it's become a waste of my precious gaming time, unless things improve. Obviously, all this needs to be play-tested, but such changes, using existing game mechanics, could be easily incorporated to make Carrier Play more rewarding and enjoyable, while at the same time allow players to use Naval History (somewhat) as a guide for their tactics. OK-- Thoughts, anyone? Trolls need not reply-- we already know what you (don't) think...
  4. Yes, here I go yet again. I'm against the reduced tech tree's, and hate the cookie cutter nature of everything has rockets, torps and bombs and tossing history out the window. I'll likely get a bunch of "Gameplay>History" - I don't care, I get the concept when we HAVE to throw it out. You can have history AND gameplay, and be fine. Just as you can have gameplay over history, and wreck the whole thing. Much like with my thing on having Kaga tier 6/7 - I don't have ordnance damage for the rework, otherwise, I'd include what it should generally be set to given I prefer we go the road larger groups, which gives more accuracy, but lower alpha damage. And I'm under no delusions here that even IF they listen to me - that this goes live in a week, and that they delay 8.0 till this would be ready. But I'm sure they can make the ordnance changes, or at least some basic ones, and then as they finish add further touches in armaments, integrate odd tiers a bit later, etc. But the tier hopping is bad for player learning, were losing some important CV's, and I flat out do not approve of the ideas they've kicked around of CV's being put as alternate branches to drop smoke, fight fires and cap with floatplanes. Anyway, enough of my complaints - here's my suggestions Tier 4 All nations, barring one that maybe did things out of order due to timing and all, start with simply TB's and DB's These were the first types developed, they are the real backbone of CV strike power, and keeps things simple. As to specifics - USN - 3 TB's, all 3 attack in a single strike, spacing similar to current Saipan, maybe a tad closer. 6x DB's, attacking 3 at a time, armed with 500 pound HE bombs. IJN - 4 TB's, attacking in 2 pairs. 4 DB's, armed with 250 kg bombs, HE type but increased pen to simulate more of a Semi-armour piercing bomb, attacking in 2 pairs. Tier 5 These are going to be a simple upgrade to include rocket planes into the mix now. Think of it as an "advanced training tier". You now have the control of a 3rd type added in, and face slightly tougher opposition, as well as start seeing deviations in lines. USN - Independence made tier 5 (Bogue set aside to be a free xp/easy earned sub hunter after subs are added to the game, or some other tweaks). 4x FM-2's added, attacking in 2 pairs with rockets along with the previous aircraft from tier 4, but upgraded planes. IJN - Zuiho set aside for now, Ryujo moved to this tier at a later date (if evens only at launch, needs to fill the spot at 6). Adds 4x A6M2's armed with 2x 60 kg standard HE bombs. These would have a more circular drop pattern vs the DB's drop reticule, being closer to USN rockets in function - start fires, disable AA, etc, however trading accuracy for a bit more bang, where as the DB's with their higher pen/lower fire chance are a bit more raw damage. Tier 6 Otherwise known as - "My first big boy/girl carrier". This is when we will start to see the fleet type carriers. You get more planes, that are better than your previous in the case of USN (IJN will basically be using the tier 6 planes at tier 5), and face even heavier AA - this is the tier you start showing what you know and fully applying what you learned in the previous two...hopefully. And now you start to see that even higher tier gameplay. USN - Ranger here, as in rework currently. increased fighters to 8 planes per group (2 groups, 4 planes) an additional TB in the strike (1 group, 4 planes) and DB's to 8 as well (2 groups, 4 planes) IJN - Carrier Soryu takes this slot (eventually), equipped with the same as the previous but now 6 fighters, still armed with the 60 kg bombs in 3 groups of 2, 8 TB's (2 groups, 4 planes, same pattern as current IJN strikes) and 9 DB's (3 groups of 3) Tier 7 Decisions decisions, this will be the first tier that offers some options. USN - This tier will belong to Yorktown on the USN side. Slight increase in planes, 10 fighters (2x5) yet another TB (1x5), and 12 DB's (3x4). However, as opposed to just be saddled with the 500 pound HE bomb, you will now have an option for a 1000 pound HE bomb - trading a bit of accuracy for more punch. IJN - Hiryu keeps it's place to square off against Yorktown. 9 fighters (3x3) 9 TB's (3x3) 12 DB's (3x4). The A6M5's this gets no longer carry 2x 60 kg bombs, but a single 250 kg HE bomb as opposed o the SAP of the DB's. As opposed to previous tiers TB's get an armament choice - They can opt to have a torpedo that has lower speed, but a shorter resurface and a bit more damage and if possible, able to operate in shallower water than USN's. Tier 8 More decisions and the point you really see higher tier gameplay more often as the planes get better and we have some more increases. USN - 12 fighters (3x4), 6 TB's (1x6), 15 DB's (3x5) . The F4U's will be packing 2 more HVAR's than previous tiers for a total of 8 per plane. TB's are, well, still TB's but now you have the standard 6 of current USN CV's in your attack. DB's meanwhile have 2-3 choices now. Did Wargaming just release a line DD's everyone is playing? pack on the 500 pound bombs for lower damage, but better accuracy to sink that DD before he sinks you. A new line of heavy cruisers - make'em hurt with a 1000 pounds of HE that takes out their AA AND their HP. Has the day finally come that the grand Stalinium BB's have been unleashed? Show them the power of 1000 pounds of armour piercing freedom can do. Maybe even in a smaller, more convenient 500 pound form for those pesky light/medium cruisers that are just armoured enough 500 pound HE isn't enough, but not so much 1000 pound AP goes straight through for minimum damage, but too small and agile for 1000 pound HE to be effective. IJN - 12 fighters (3x4), 12 TB's (3x4), 12 DB's (3x4) - The N1K's now are packing 2x 250 kg bombs. TB's well, now you have 3 runs with current IJN pattern, and your previous torpedo options. Also, you can run the D4Y's with either the same 250 kg SAP bombs, or 1 500 kg SAP bomb - less coverage, tad more accuracy. Tier 9 But wait - THERES MORE USN - 15 fighters (3x5), 6 TB's (2x3), 18 DB's (3x6). We see the return of proper tier 9 planes to this ship. The F4U-4 is back home, and now in place of HVAR's - she has the options of bigger, badder Tiny Tim's. While her TB numbers are not increased, the AD-1/2 moving here carrying 2 torpedoes like on the Saipan makes up for it. Though, maybe a straighter line that's a tad more spaced out. As to DB's, all previous option on the table, and you have more. IJN - 12 fighters (3x4), 12 TB's (3x4), 16 DB (4x4). Not much changing here - fighters are newer, but same options, TB's are newer, but same options. DB's however now come in 250 kg for less damage but more bombs, 500 kg for likely best for those that want fewer bombs, but a bigger boom, and 800 kg for those that want a VERY big boom. Tier 10 The tier where everything has it's it's largest numbers, the American's unleash the big fire (no, not the A-bomb for those that get the reference) and the IJN insists you have a drink of water. USN - 18 fighters (3x6), 6 TB's (3x2), 18 DB's (3x6). 3 Groups of 6... something's carrying HVAR's or Tiny Tim's. Personally instead of the F8F's return, I'd actually like to see the F9F Panther or F2H Banshee at tier 10 - faster than the F4U's (maybe not max speed cause attack run), or if they are faster, give them less HP. Maybe even have it an alternative - a faster plane so it's a tad harder to aim, but can get through AA faster but when AA like flak hits - it hurts more cause weaker aircraft. It has plus and minuses. The TB's are now the AM Maulers - carrying 3 a piece dropping in pairs. And then there's the DB's. 500 pounds can still be an option, 1000 pound HE still there as well as AP, but now we have a new option if you find there's not enough boom in your life - 2000 pound HE bombs. You might get a lucky shot that'll hurt a DD, more likely just some disables from the blast or minimal damage, some of the regular cruisers, you might score a hit, 2 if your lucky. BB's, CV's, maybe the super cruisers - ooohhh they are likely to feel that one seeing as they are nice, big targets. IJN - 16 fighters (4x4), 16 TB's (4x4), 16 DB's (4x4). At this point - it's a fake ship, with fake planes in most, if not all cases. So, this is where I say "okay, screw it" - IJN's fighters get an option to mount whatever rockets Wargaming wants to give them as an alternative to bombs. TB's get a third option now - Deepwater torpedoes with that increased flood chance, but only hits CA/L, BB, and CV's at most (dubious of making them like Asashio's). And DB's have their previous options. Ideally, having all tiers, aside from allowing us to not screw around with the premiums, would help better ease players in to higher tiers, as opposed to jumping from 4-6-8-10 because the gameplay you see at these gaps is VERY different. As you go up, you get a new type when you learn the basics with 2, and as you go up you get acclimated to having more and more planes and strikes. More importantly, options add's variety, which the rework desperately needs and at more than basically tier 10. Once you get past training/beginner tiers you start getting ways to customize the ship more to whatever challenge you need, whatever ship line was just introduced, or whatever you wanna toy with that match. And hopefully, this would also help make these two lines feel more unique from each other. USN focuses more on rockets and DB's than on torpedoes. And even though it catches up in number dropped - it takes an approach overall more along the lines of putting all it's eggs in one basket. Short of the jet fighters with rockets, slower, more durable, but fewer attacks and more in a group to lose, even though it has 2 more torps than IJN at tier 10, having 3 on 1 plane means losing one plane is 16.6 percent of your striking power. IJN, on the other hand, focuses a bit more on Torpedoes and bombs, a bit harder hitting in that sense, but opting still for "our planes will blot out the sun", using smaller groups of more agile and faster planes, attacking more times. I see their bombs generally being a bit less accurate than USN's, meaning they aren't quite as good at going after a DD. But, the TB focus in numbers, DB's with better penetrating HE - excel at hunting BB an maybe weaker AA cruisers. Where as a more "standard" USN loadout would be likely better at going after Cruisers and DD's than Battleships. But USN has options that can let it trade some of that to hunt a BB or any one type better, and IJN too can more heavily focus on a type. And even without going away from historically used things there are still further options that can be explored in alternate lines, premiums, or just adding more options. Other than where noted - I'm limiting what I have here to 1 bomb. Some of the IJN and pretty much all USN can carry more than 1 which an add differences or options. Maybe instead of torps in a second USN branch we make use of the heavy lift ability and while they lack torps have 2-4k pounds of bombs to drop. The USN fighters all had bomb carrying ability. Straight HE could be added to IJN as an option on DB's while a second line focuses more on bombs than torps. Maybe different in that instead of DB's like a bomb heavy USN would be using level bombing in the likes of the B5N. AP for IJN I'd rather save as unique to Kaga (used in the attack on Pearl) for options but, if need be, as an option not the default and used on level bombers till maybe high tier, could be a thing. Like I said, I know there's no way you can do all this in a week. Not sure where you guys are on Yorktown which I thought I saw in the proposed split but can at least be reverse engineered from E to save time, not sure just how different Soryu and Hiryu are if you could modify a Hiryu model to be close enough to Soryu to save time, with a proper ground up model maybe later. But the basic ordnance and number changes should be doable in that time frame I think as most, if not all the resources are already in game. And nerfing ordnance damage - what I've seen of round 2 and 3 seems like it needs a nerf as is, definitely needs one under my idea as I generally have more planes attacking than current testing. I'd give you the numbers, but I don't have current ordnance damage in the rework to figure it out. Worst case scenario my numbers for RTS should be just as viable as a starting point seeing as were still talking fairly high volume. I'm never going to love the rework. Much as I typically hate RTS stuff this is the one time and game I actually enjoy it. I'd like it better if we just removed strafing or nerfed it right and my long list of other changes and really made more a battle of wits than battle of the alt key, but c'est la vie. But not removing effectively half my tech tree ships, not throwing history completely out the window, not removing tiers to mess with them and add goofy as hell things like fire fighting equipment and add them back in at different even tiers, giving us more options across tiers, and giving the ships some actual difference and personality in what they use and how they attack - it goes a long ways toward helping me at least tolerate it. When it comes to premiums - I already said my bit on Kaga in a separate thread. Saipan I won't lose sleep over moving up in tiers, Not sure what you guys want to do and are doing with E, but I may have an idea or two (as I recall she was the first CV rated for night/poor weather operations) and well, GZ I have no ideas what you want to do. You want to keep her 1938 planes, fine, still don't think she should be tier 8 but I have ideas. Want to move more towards her 40's updated planes, that's fine too, still got ideas. Still would have been better to make her part of the tree and just put some Fw-190's on her since tree's are more what if upgrades anyway.
  5. Hi guys, I was looking through possibilities for a tier 9 premium ship, one in the 15-20k doubloon range. I found two carriers with very similar stories that were yet so different. I hope you will share your ideas in the comments (that’s what they are for, duh) and that you will like the interesting ships that I would like to see in game. The USS intrepid was an Essex class carrier, the fifth to be launched. Commissioned in ‘43, she served in most major surface action in the Pacific until the end of wwii, most famously Leyte gulf. Her reputation as “unsinkable” was bennifited by surviving multiple kamikaze attacks despite serious damage. Used as an auxiliary carrier throughout the late 40s she was overhauled into a slant deck carrier, serving a substantial second life in Korea and Vietnam The USS Saratoga was a converted battlecruiser, capable of carrying over 100 aircraft, and having a spectacular armament of 8 (4x2) eight inch 203mm guns and 12 5 inch guns as well as over 100 small caliber machine guns and 20 or so aa cannons. Serving in the pacific, she arrived in midway just in time for the Guadalcanal campaign. After serving in support of several island hopping landings, she was retired for use as a training ship and was eventually sunk at operation crossroads in 1946 I would like to see one of these craft in game, though both would need some buffing and nerfing to end up balanced-ish, but both show real promise. Let me know what you think in the comments down below
×