Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lexington'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Filter by number of...

Found 37 results

  1. I think it is the consensus that the Lexington is at the bottom of the tier 8 CV pool. With it's 1/1/2 flight group, it just doesn't have the ability to effectively contest the twin fighter squadrons on the Shokaku or Enterprise, and its single squadron is much smaller than the uber-sized one on the Graf Zepplin. The strike potential isn't terrible on paper, especially running AP bombs when there are vulnerable targets in the match, but because the Lexington has such a hard time establishing air-control, those strike squadrons are very vulnerable. I am not a unicum CV driver, but I've now reached T10 ranked battle playing just the Big E, and each time, I was matched against a poor Lexington. Every single match was a blow-out on the CV side and victory. Using the twin fighter squadrons of the Enterprise I was constantly able to lock-and-strafe the single Lexington fighter squad, then go on to wipe out the strike planes. With the smaller number of players in a ranked match and the tendency of everyone to stay together, especially when a CV is present, all I had to do was keep my fighters near our ships, then intercept the attack group. After that, while the Lexington is suffering the abysmally long squadron reload period, my strike planes would go in against no resistance save any DFAA carrying ships and proceed to smash things up. These aren't exactly novel tactics, but none of the Lexington drivers were able to counter it because the flight-group basically cripples them against a Shokaku or Enterprise. For the sake of your team, if you want to drive a Lexington in ranked, I urge you to reconsider. In my experience, both this season and last, the Lexington is just not competitive, not even close, against the Shokaku or Enterprise. Especially against the Enterprise, I would argue, due to the extremely large fighter reserves, bonus from Dogfighting Expert, and barely smaller squadron size. I have the Shokaku and Enterprise and leveled through the Lexington a long time ago, so the only tier 8 CV I haven't played is the Graf Zepplin. There are probably the few extremely good Lexington drivers out there that can make it work (pre flight-group changes, I had unicum status in the Ranger running the old 0/1/3 strike flight-group), but I argue that it is a massive uphill struggle that does not help your team. In randoms the Lexington may do better, where there are more ships to engage so the chances of catching one without cover is higher, and due to the different objectives in a random match as the opposing team's ships are less likely to be clustered together for mutual support. But in ranked, it just seems to be a futile exercise.
  2. I've been grinding away on my Lexington, and I am starting to appreciate what she can actually do. And I think I'm getting the hang of her. Things I've learned: AP bombs are my best friend. I routinely nuke solitary battleships with relative ease. It's not uncommon to just delete a battleship at close to full or above half health with both squadrons, especially if it's German. Strafe is my other best friend. It's amazingly helpful to get out of and get into fights with other aircraft, especially when I am usually outnumbered at the start, it helps to get down as much as I can on the first go. It's also great for deterring desperate Shokaku CV-snipe squadrons. (Had one in my last game. 29 aircraft shot down for me, and half health lost. I did not try to snipe him, however, and got out of the game with about 125k dmg and 4 kills. Yay!) Tier X cruisers can sod off. It is very hard to do anything meaningful with teams full of Des Moines and Minotaurs everywhere, but when I find that one poor BB that overextended, I do my level best to make him pay for it. But yeah, now I've been using her for awhile, I can actually see where she can hit pretty hard. I haven't seen another GZ since that one fateful game, but I have faced at least 2 Enterprises, and somewhat struggled, but I usually at least walked away from the encounter. Lexington is starting to be pretty fun for me. Looking forward for the next ship down the line.
  3. So after some decent grinding in Ranger, plus some lovely free EXP drops and some $$ spend on some doubloons, I am now in possession of USS Lexington. The remaining Free EXP was used to research & purchase the upgraded fighters. I took it into a Coop Battle (because I wouldn't DARE bring a stock Lexington into a Random, knowing I could go up against Tier X's and face off against a Shokaku or Enterprise, both likely far more effective and efficient captains than I am) and it was... underwhelming, to say the least. A meager 49K dmg. A game or two down the line and I pump out a 109K and 132K dmg game, but something just doesn't seem to click like it did with Ranger. She feels weak. She certainly looks the part of a heavyweight hitter, but sure as heck don't swing like one. I'm seeing my strike squadrons drop out of the sky like flies going up against the same ships I did with Ranger to generally good success, though I imagine this would improve with upgraded squadrons. (I have just about the same upgrades, and the same captain fully retrained.) And she costs an arm and a leg to just service, not even repair. 60,000 credits a battle to maintain, and with some games going so fast I hardly have time to build up damage numbers, and I make as little as 2,000 credits to losing upwards of 10,000. I don't know if I'm missing something or what, but I'm not exactly impressed with Lexington thus far. I'll give it much more time before I make final judgement though. I have only had it for a day after all. And it's not like I'm going to abandon the line or anything because I don't like one ship. I've made it this far, I want to go all the way. I've heard she's kinda weaker than her contemporaries (which is alarming, seeing as that's the story for pretty much every USN CV on the line. As far as I know the line gets "good" at Essex, and continues to Midway. That is, not totally outclassed by the IJN CV of the same tier). I dunno. Maybe she just takes some getting used to or something.
  4. USS Lexington wreck found

    The wreck of the aircraft carrier USS Lexington has recently been found in the Coral Sea by a team of explorers. For more info, see the article at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/aircraft-carrier-uss-lexington-sunk-during-wwii-found-in-coral-sea/ar-BBJVlYA
  5. I have enough XP and coins to move up from the Lex to the Essex. But after the "rebalance" I wonder if its worth it. I get a few more planes and one more squadron but the planes are still T8. I was really looking forward to owning the Midway but she has been downgraded also. WG has taken away our choice of loads. Maybe, USN CV T8-10 has become just a coop toy?
  6. I like the new Lexington configuration. I really do. You have now torps, fighters and bombers behind the stock config. It gives you tactical flexibility and in random battles you can do a lot more no matter who is in the red CV because he has more or less the same challenges you have. T9 and T10 AA is common and IJN and Enterprise have to deal with. There are AA all over the battlefield and you can use your AA as fall back point to compensate the fact tha you have a single fighter group. Depending on the battle, you can decide if you defend your bomber squads or if you defend a ship in troubles. Even easier when you are in division. This tactical approach vanishes in ranked. Gameplay is faster and if enemy has 2 fighter squads, then your bombers and your F sqad have minimum chances. Besides, the main weaknesses of Enterprise are erased. She doesn't have to face T9 AA not to mention that there are fewer ships grouped. Enterprise has the same loadout of Midway. I think that lot of Enterprises will climb up to #1 this season. Also Shokaku has the same chances of Enterprise and with the AS option they can have some fun. I put on hold my Lex and I will take her again after rank 11 and try again. But I am pretty sure that thanks to the Darwin process in those ranks I will not face any other Lexington anymore.
  7. Just wanted to share a match of mine that I just had in Lexington. With the new change to USN CV loadouts, I was eager to see how Lexington would fare. Initial impressions are very good. 1/1/2 is infinitely better than any of the previous loadouts. The Lexington fighter is insanely powerful if you use it right, and the HE DBs still nuke things. The addition of a TB is just incredible as it gives you so much more power and ability to strike hard. Top on XP, 43 plane kills, 173k damage, with High Caliber and Confederate. And for 2/3 of the match, I was only ~400 HP.
  8. New CV Captains? Need to Learn Manual Drops? Only have 3 minutes?! This video is for you!
  9. 2 vs. 2

    I never seen this happen before in my 2 years + playing this game. First I though it was a glitch but as soon as game loaded nope, it got real really quick too . Quickest battle too...check it out, 2 vs.2, Tirpiz and Lexington on each team. Anyone ever had this happen to them?
  10. Hello captains. I've mad this mod where Lexington is modded into Saratoga Preview images: the non-kai form (wood-coloured deck) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynOJQFWGUWCcDU0ZmhXOW0zdW8/view?usp=sharing dark deck (Saratoga Kai): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynOJQFWGUWCUTlTc2phTnQzUUE/view?usp=sharing Instrction: Download the appropriate colour of the mod。 Decompress the files paste it in the res_mod/(current build) folder
  11. Idea for the Ranger/Lexington

    The Ranger and Lexington both get completely outclassed by their Japanese counterparts. But to try and help USN CV match them better, Ranger and Lexington Balanced loadout should go from 1/1/1 to 1/1/2. The AS load out should go from 2/0/2 to 2/0/3. The Strike loadout should go from 0/1/3 to 1/1/3. The reason is that, for example (These numbers are with that AS captain perk) AS Hiryu gets 1 more fighter, 4 more TB, and 4 less DB than AS Ranger. Then the other Hiryu loadouts are stock 1/2/2, and the upgraded 2/2/2. 2/2/2 beats the Ranger 1/1/1 by 3 fighters, 2 TB, and 3 DB. Then vs the Rangers strike loadout, it gets 2 more TB, 8 fighters(vs none), and 11 less DB. So Rangers AS gets beaten or is delayed by any Hiryu loadout(Cause the 3/1/2 AS Hiryu beats Ranger AS, and the 2/2/2 can hold up Ranger fighters pretty well) Rangers balanced gets beaten. Period. Rangers strike is shredded by fighters, and Hiryu still gets a bunch of strike planes.
  12. I know it was Co-op, and bots are predictable enough to take advantage of the fact; but I was still blown away when I saw the results at the end of the game; My first 'carry,' (by the definition I've seen in the forums often; 'x2 or more base xp than the closest following teammate.') My first 'carry' in a carrier, (Lexington, Strike, easy mode, admittedly, and especially in co-op, if you can catch a few breaks...) First time getting over 300k damage, in any ship, in any mode. Neighbors, a cyclone eventually showed up, started at the northern end of the NW spawn. Hid in the north behind a tiny island first part of the game, attacking enemy ships in B. A player named 'aim_for_waterline' was in the area in a North Carolina, and he helped a great deal with AA and heavy gunfire support. Red bots eventually did what it seems they love to do on Neighbors; charged A, and stomped the gallant Greens who had gone there. Finally moved out and headed for C, prompted by the icon showing the approach of a cyclone. Eventually capped C, repeated airstrikes in the direction of A, eventually diverting one towards the Red spawn when the NC finally succumbed and I lost sight of the Reds. Once there I caught the bot CV sitting still; flooding, fires, and it blew up. Then headed off to the Northeast corner, hid behind the island there, and it simply became an issue (with a bit of chat help from waterline, who was still watching,) of damage mathematics, which I won.
  13. I haven't played my Lexington in a... long while (not much since the commander skill rework, tbh). Before then, I was playing a lot of strike loadouts, but the Shokaku just left me feeling outclassed (I see you 2/2/2). I'm thinking about respeccing to AS, but I'm not sure if it's worth it, and if it is worth it, what skills are actually useful--I feel like my fighters just get torn up anyway, but maybe I'm doing something wrong? Thanks in advance for the advice.
  14. Thoughts on Lexington

    My Starting Point I used free XP to unlock the 2/0/2 loadout and the upgraded fighters/dive bombers. Major Issues The planes seem to be a bit derpy when it comes to following specific orders (rapid course changes and ALT attacks) Planes are overall a bit slower than I would like There are no good loadouts to pick from My Ideas for Fixes Tier VIII Dive Bomber Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Plane Speed: 140 ---> 146/147 Tier VIII Fighter Vought F4U-1 Corsair ​Plane Speed: 169 ---> 172 Changes to Loadouts: ​0/1/3 removed 1/1/1 removed 1/1/2 added as stock 2/1/1 available as option 2/0/2 remains unchaged It is my own opinion that the SB2C is slower than it should be, based off of the historical speeds of the Tier VIII attack aircraft Curtiss SB2C-4 Helldiver: 475 km/h (257 knots) at 5,090 meters Nakajima B6N2 Tenzan: 481 km/h (260 knots) at 4,900 meters Aichi D3A2: 430 km/h (232 knots) In-game speeds: Curtiss SB2C-4 Helldiver: 140 Nakajima B6N2 Tenzan: 148 Aichi D3A2: 139 The SB2C is much closer to the B6N in terms of speed, so why it is essentially the same as the D3A2 is not known to me. In addition, the TBM-3 (Lexington's torpedo bomber) should have the same speed as the Aichi D3A2. Currently the TBM-3 has a speed of 136 which is atrocious, and a buff to 139 to match the D3A2 would at least be something.
  15. Porta-aviões Estadunidenses

    Saudações, marinheiros(as)! Estou voltando ao World of Warships, depois de 5 meses sem jogar e estou querendo voltar direto para as Partidas Classificatórias. Na Season 05 terminei na 9ª colocação jogando apenas com Porta-aviões Estadunidenses (na época, Independence e Lexington). A partir da 8º colocação aparecia uma força invisível que me impedia de vencer contra um Shokaku, o que até então, mesmo com algumas dificuldades, eu conseguia fazer. Então, nessa nova Season, gostaria de saber como estão os Porta-aviões Estadunidenses no geral, tanto em Classificatória como nas Partidas Aleatórias mesmo, se ainda há uma exorbitante supremacia aérea japonesa ou está mais disputado? [EDIT] Gostaria também de saber se a WarGaming tem algum projeto de mudança para os Porta-aviões. Agradeço desde já a ajuda. E feliz Dia das Mulheres.
  16. Lexington Loadouts

    So I noticed that all upgrades are 50% off so I decided to buy Lexington as the upgrades would not be as expensive as normal. But, I am not entirely sure which loadout I should go with. On Ranger, I ran strike for a bit and then swapped to 2/0/2 for the remainder of the grind. I could continue to do 2/0/2 with Lexington, but the fighters do not have the speed advantage over Shoukaku fighters like Ranger's did over Hiryuu fighters. I could go with 0/1/3 and just damage farm pubbies, but I actually like being able to be offensive against the enemy CV. I can always just use 1/1/1 and DoT stack either flooding or fires, and have the fighter squad able to harass the enemy CV planes and defend ships. Also, don't come in here and make dumb comments like "don't play Lexington" or "Lexington is garbage." I got through Ranger and it was actually quite good and entertaining. I can get through Lexington just fine.
  17. SO despite having very good matches with the Lexington (http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/101902-lexington-decided-to-take-her-out-of-port-for-once/) The main issue of my Lexington still remains So definitely going to buy the perm camo soon, that at least helps a tad bit
  18. Due to the costs of a non premium player and my Lexingtons repair cost, while I do well playing her, I tend not to take her out much. But I decided to try her out again today and well I had a great match USN CVs they still get the job done
  19. Now, before I begin, is there anyone who has never played WoT and thus will whine that I am comparing the two? There are usually some, so: "hit the road, jack, and please don't come back. I'll wait." Now, are there only former and/or current players of both games? Good, now let's begin. The Lexington and Saratoga were America's first big aircraft Carriers, and it showed in their design. These 30,000+ Battlecruiser-to-Carrier monsters were designed in a way unique from any other USN Carriers ever built. They were semi-heavily armored, but more bizarrely, they had guns to start with. Not little puny five-inchers, but the real deal. 8 INCH GUNS.(!)<scary music plays> Now, these, IF it ever had come down to it, could take a real bite out of a DD or Cruiser. As it happens, Lexington was sunk,(at the battle of the Coral Sea) but not in a way that allowed her to use those decorative, but still menacing for a DD, 8 inchers. After this, Saratoga lost her 8 inch guns for dinky five-inch ones instead, as it was obvious that in this war she would never need them,(the eight inch guns) and as it turns out, that prediction was right. Now, enough with the history lesson. What about Lexington in-game? Well, Lexington lacks those fearsome 8 inch guns(perfect for trolling enemy DDs, but we won't get them), as well as some AA/secondary configurations. She is also missing some of her(admittedly terrible) historical aircraft. http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Lexington However, for those who are drooling at the thought of those 8 inch troll cannons, forget it. Dream on, WG will never give you them, on your life. Why? Well, it's sort of of complicated. If you were wondering where WoT references come into play, it's here. The web of reasons why we can't have them in this game today started before this game had even been seriously considered. In WoT, a Guinness(did I spell that right?) book of World Records holder, and a receiver of numerous other awards, there has been a certain meta that carried over to WoWS. The meta is this: scouts > support unit or in some cases the trump card launcher, scouts < Jack-of-all-trades vehicle, Jack-of-all-trades vehicle and/or scouts < massive damage sponge with the capability to dish it out too, support unit or trump card launcher > massive damage sponge with the capability to dish it out, too. Now, we do not have a "Trump card launcher" class, one class of ships(DDs) fits two categories. DD > Carriers or in some cases other DDs, DDs < CL/CA, CL/CA and/or DDs sometimes(German BBs) < BBs, Carriers or DDs > BBs. Get it? No? Well, here, I'll try to boil it down to it's essential elements for you. The support unit has to be vulnerable in general to scouts, although others could join in on the hunt theoretically. This balances out the hated support unit mechanic of fire from afar, if you will. A CV having long-range, workable guns with workable damage is unthinkable balance-wise, because that screws up the meta. Don't believe me? Carriers with good guns > DD with little guns that have to DPM their enemies to death(but they wouldn't have time to do so) and relatively short-ranged, not-fast-enough to kill a target at max range torpedoes. See? Now, I mean, it is possible for, say, a well-driven BB to kill a poorly played 8-inch gun CV, but this makes DDs less useful. Not all of this has to do with the Meta, however. This is also a UI problem. The reason I say that is that WG are having a really hard time implementing hybrid -/Carriers, which HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM. Having attack aircraft and guns is not only OP by ruining the meta, but there is also the issue of how to control both. The last time anything like this was dealt with was back when non-CV fighters could be controlled. Does anyone remember how they solved that? Not only this, but a Carrier's HUD is not well-suited for surface combat anyways, as it is set in overhead by default. In all honesty, this would be a terrible idea. Do I still want it? Sure, why not! However, it is still a very bad idea. Until they resolve the Plane and Gun combination problems which are inherent in Ise/Hyuga and Tone, I don't expect to see CVs with guns. Of course, this is all just conjecture, no one really knows why WG don't want CVs with guns, but I do have a reasonable argument here.(it's just my opinion, though.)
  20. First Tier 8 games... Sort of...

    Well, I deliberately avoided Tier 8 games like the plague since docking my Atago a few month ago, and only purchased Lexington, Shokaku, and North Carolina when they were discounted for some vague point in the future when I felt like I might want to use them. As of this time I see no reason to, and have no intention of purchasing any additional tier 8 ships. No as to the 'sort of' part; In Atago I have 135 games in PvP, and 10 in PvE; Comparatively I do better in my ARP Myoko; Atago is like a Tier 8 Zao? You're kidding, right? To me it is the slow turning, too long, too easily citadeled Blue Barge. I don't like it because I can't seem to 'get into it,' like I feel I have with ships like Bogue, Konigsburg, New Mexico, and to an extent, Ranger and Saipan. Bizarrely; for a ship I don't like, my win rate is above average... (-) Now, they were all in PvE, but these were my first games in North Carolina, Lexington, and Shokaku; (five games played total, PvE, in each ship,) Now, these are merely my opinions, and don't reflect how others have done with the ships, or their stats on the game web page or WS.T; North Carolina; I like that the gun reloads seem fast, and that the turrets seem to rotate fast; actual or not, that is my perception. The ship seems maneuverable and fast, (compared to the 'Standard' USN BBs I'm used too,) but I can't really judge the armor, since I worked to avoid getting focused by the bots. Lexington; Lexington seems to be the epitome of the 'point and click' style of carrier play many have complained about. Wave attacking with the 3 DBs and 1 TB almost never failed to at least massively cripple a ship when successful. That being said; I finally understand some of the complaints of higher tier CV drivers, at least on the USN side; the 1-1-1 'balanced' loadout is a joke. THREE squadrons at Tier 8? I had THREE squadrons in my Bogue. The 2-0-2 loadout is maybe not so bad, since I've used it and an Air Supremacy commander to good effect in Ranger and Saipan. Overall I like the ship and its attack power, but wish it had at least one fighter in the 0-1-3 loadout. Shokaku; Considering I've done pretty good in Ryujo, you might think I would do okay in Shokaku... I can't stand the thing, and feel the same way about Hiryu. Despite others doing well in those ships, I found the attack groups weak, vulnerable to fighters and AA, and lacking in attack power. That these ships are so feared, and I had so much trouble using them, even in PvE, makes me wonder if anyone who gets attacked by their squadrons even tries to defend against them... ​Did you maneuver to defeat the attack? Did you launch your Catapult Fighter? Did you focus your AA fire at the closest/most dangerous squadron? We're you off alone or with a group? Maybe I'm just no good at the multi-tasking IJN CVs nead... As a general comment about carriers; 'Oh, carriers are insta-delete, point-and-click no-brainier winning machines...' Yeah, right... Try running a carrier in a battle when you pick strike, and the other carrier picks Air Superiority. Try running a carrier when it's a four carrier battle, (2 v 2) and you're the low tier carrier, never mind if you also happen to be low tier versus the rest of the enemy ships. Try running a carrier when several cruisers on the enemy team have Defensive Fire, never mind almost EVERY ship on the enemy team having Defensive Fire, (cruiser mobs,) or is a battleship with an almost suicidally high AA rating. Yeah; running carriers is sooooo easy.
  21. 1. Remove defensive AA from IJN CVs. The American "thing" in WoWs is better AA. In terms of CVs, the Americans get worse speed, maneuverability, concealment, and secondaries, they should at least get better AA. This would mean than IJN CVs can't just ROFLstomp American strike loadouts with fighters since they would have to be more circumspect with their fighters, else they risk being deleted. 2. Buff the bombs and panicked dispersion to 5.3 levels. For the vast numbers of ships that have defensive AA, it's no longer possible to target BBs through defensive AA, the sole advantage of American CVs is negated. Then, buff American CAs to have an improved version of defensive AA that increases the drop circle to current sizes. I envision the US CVs as more of a blunt tool. A broadsword to nuke capital ships instead of the Japanese Katana that slices through DDs and CAs. Currently, the IJN CVs do pretty much everything better than their American counterparts. Make America(n cvs) great again.
  22. Got "It's Just a Flesh Wound" X2 in my Lexington earlier today. Killed the DD that killed me with DB's and a low heath BB with TB's to end the match. The replay and screen shots are on http://wowreplays.com/Replay/12892 This made me laugh as I watched it all unfold.
  23. Intro: Although the US high tier CVs used to be the most brokenly overpowered ships in the game, they are now among the worst ships. The Lexington, Essex, and Midway consistently make it on the top 5 worst performing ships every week. In this post I will try to identify the reasons for this trend as well as suggest some improvements. Reasons US CVs suck: Dive Bombers deal inconsistent damage US CVs are limited in tactical flexibility US CVs are limited in strategical flexibility by poor choices in plane Migration of skilled CV players to IJN CVs Dive Bombers have a high potential damage (over 70k damage per squadron), but they're limited by their large drop circle, which translates to poor accuracy in the most precise DB drops. Studies show that on a perfect drop against a Shimakaze that a single squad of 1000lb bombs does around 2000 damage. It's possible to only deal 5000 damage to a battleship even on a perfect drop with unpanicked bombers, if the bombers are panicked, forget expecting damage. This makes using dive bombers both unrewarding and often frustrating. Also, while there is the strategy of stacking fires, it is difficult and more easily done in an IJN CV (this will be discussed later). A possible way to buff US CVs is by decreasing the size of the One suggestion to improving US CVs is by decreasing the size of the manual drop circle. I personally like this solution for two reasons, first and foremost it reduces the RNG inherent in US CVs at present while also increases the skill ceiling of US CVs. Secondly, it makes it easier for the opposing ship to actually dodge US bomb drops. At the present, dodging a US bomber is impossible and ships should just concentrate on giving the enemy bombers a suboptimal angle rather than trying to avoid the bombers entirely. What I meant by lack of tactical flexibility is that US CVs only have one real way to effectively contribute to the game, which is by using their DoT to attack capital ships. These attacks usually involve sending one or two sets of dive bombers to drop on an enemy ship, then using the other two squadron of attack planes to follow up with DoT. However, due to the limited potential of dive bombers mentioned above this is usually only effective against battleships. Against battleships, this tactic is limited by the massive AA of high tier ships, both USN and IJN, exacerbated by splitting the attacking squadrons, and the sheer duribility of battleships. A healthy battleship can usually survive anything less than an 100% perfect alpha strike by the US strike package and their repair and heal go a long way to recovery. A possible solution to this is by giving the Lexington, Essex, Midway an extra fighter squadron in their strike package.This would give the US CVs the ability to challenge IJN Air Superiority, although at the cost of some hangar space for bombers. The fighters would inhibit the superiority of the IJN TBs while allow the US planes to do more damage (because of less loss due to interception). What I mean by poor strategic flexibility is the compromise that each of the US CV FCS modules bring. By running Air Superiority, an American carrier sacrifices the ability to influence the match through damage, by choosing Balanced, the US CV chooses to be inferior in every single way (except 2/1/2 Midway which has better fighters the Hak) to an equivalent IJN CV. By choosing Strike, the US CV loses the ability to protect her destroyers (everything less can should be able to fend for themselves). An IJN CV can stack DoT better than a US CV because of their TB, which cause flooding, which must be instantly repaired. The US TB squadron(singular) often gets focused fired to death, leaving the dive bombers to do damage. A possible solution to this is the one mentioned above. Another possible solution is by standardizing the squadron size to 4 plane squads, however I dislike this approach because then Us CVs would lose their main difference from IJN CVs and when Essex and Midway were 1/2/2 squadron size really wasn't a issue. This last issue... not really anything we can do except buff US CVs to competitiveness and hope more people push up the Is tree or older CVs player come back. That's it. I hope that WarGamming notices this post (or at least this issue...) and implements or tests one of these changes.
  24. Lexington DBs are Amazing

    Was just playing a match in the Lexington, so I manual drop on a Fubuki the ribbons pop up, Incapacitation, Destroyed, Devastating Strike. Look at chat he detonated, from splash damage. So yeah Lexington DBs are amazing Edit: I feel really bad for that DD though, no hits just death, well at least he got flags out of it
  25. This is mostly my personal thoughts on this matter, I have little evidence to back it up, but that unsurprising on the WoWs forums. When did U.S. CVs go so wrong? They are terrible now. Midway's winrate is barely 46.0% on the NA server, Essex is doing not much better at 46.2%. Where better to start our search than 0.5.3, the biggest U.S. CV nerf ever. Midway lost her 1/2/2 loadout for a choice of 2/1/2 or 1/1/3, in return, her DBs got a 30% increase in damage (doesn't sound like much, but is pretty massive) AA was significantly buffed, with DP guns becoming the main DPS. This improved the AA of a formation and made large groups of ships impervious to CV. Midway also lost her jets, which were basically immune to interception and zipped around at light speed. Any one of these three nerfs would've been massive, in conjunction, they were almost too much. Not quite, however. Maybe player quit the U.S. CV line because of this patch, but the ones who didn't learned and adapted. They used the DBs to their fullest potential and best effect - CV sniping. Like Midway, the U.S. DBs would absolutely burn down any CV that was caught. 5.4 Focus fire does 20% more damage to Aircraft 5.5 Here's where I think U.S. CVs went from "difficult to play" to inferior in every appreciable aspect to IJN CVs. They added defensive AA to CVs. Now, it's no longer possible to even try to snipe the enemy CV. Before, there was a debate on the expenditure of resources in a CV snipe, now, it's just impossible. Without the threat of the snipe, CVs could freely use fighters to interdict enemy strikes. This meant that fighter became much more important, a change which favored the IJN CVs, with their balanced loadouts. No longer was a pure strike package the way to go, the strength of the U.S. 1000lb bombs became insignificant under the strafe of a fighter. Also, panic drop size was increased, no longer possible to expect damage through defensive AA. Some might say that 5.3 was the death of U.S. CVs, but I disagree, I think this change did them in. 5.6 AA buffs across the board. By now the U.S. horse has already been beaten to death, this change is insignificant. "I am very quiet. Let the months and the years come, they can take nothing more from me, they can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear." -U.S. CVs