Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'midway'.

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
    • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 20 results

  1. I used to be a CV main before the CV rework, but the new CVs really didn't move me, and I have been playing more of the other ship types, and performing better in them. Tonight, I found my old niche with the new CVs thanks to the new skills in the skill rework, and I am sharing it! Strafing lives!!!!! https://www.twitch.tv/videos/896363593 BTW, if anyone can teach me how to embed, it would be greatly appreciated.
  2. It was either sheer luck or applied skill that turned this game around. Playing a ranked match on Northern Waters in Silver League we make a comeback from being triple capped.
  3. BaronNaro


    Remember when the midway could accurately 1 shot destroyers with her dive bombers? I mean she still kinda can but.. not like this. Check out some meme Midway gameplay with a sprinkle of history. Have a good day captions! Any questions or comments? \/ Reply below \/
  4. I finally got around to grinding out the Midway's UU - and with my terrible w/r in it (I do pretty well in all other CVs, but man... a terrible 36% w/r in the Mid...) anyway, I finally finished grinding it, but I don't see it in inventory or where to mount it. I went to the wiki page (which are sometimes out dated) but so no mention about it at all. Am I missing something? Is it automatic?
  5. I served aboard the beast of the east when she was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan for 2 years. quite a good time in my life just 18 and the world at my feet. visited some 20 different countries during that span How many others are seeing the old duty station in this game.
  6. 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...
  7. After taking my time looking at how the CV rework has panned out through my own experiences, I've noted several things and thought up some changes that I believe will help out game-play against CVs without nerfing them in the sea bed. First thing i noted was that the Carrier serves as the Great Equalizer, smashing pre-existing class imbalances into oblivion. Granted this comes at the cost of having each team having a very strong ship. Second, The Great Equalizer doesn't fairly affect all ship types, DDs suffer the worst. However this also doesn't affect all tiers the same. DDs at tier 6 suffer more from rocket attacks than bombs, and DDs at high tiers suffer from bombs more than rockets. So I thought up several changes that should be able to fix most of the DD suffering while not obliterating the CV game-play either. 1. Reduce the flight speed of the rockets fired from the strike aircraft by 25%-50%. I personally think that the strike aircraft should be quick attacks to damage to targets in high AA and to smack around other vessels that are not well armored. They also are effective scouts but not the best for every nation. This job title doesn't need the rockets to be insta-damage. Requiring more lead on a target will allow targeted vessels to have better chances of dodging an attack while also allowing the strike aircraft to retain their spotting and speedy attacks. It also allows for the reduction of the set-up time for the rocket aircraft for a little bit better easy of use. These next two changes are in specific relation to the Midway, as Midway is the DD murdering psychopath of the high tiers. 1. Reduce bomb damage from 11200 to 9200 or 10000. Midways bombs do a LOT of damage, nerfing the damage down to Lexington's level or just reducing the damage to 10k should increase the chances of survival against the HE bombs from Midway. Another possible change that could be placed in would be decreasing fall speed of the bombs, but I dont think this would have much effect for DDs because Midway players like to drop their bombs at the last second on DDs which is so low that it wouldn't make much difference. 2. Change the Torpedo Bombers from their 3x3 (3 attack runs of 3 planes each) to a 4x2 (4 attack runs of 2 planes each) and increase the torpedo damage from 4233 to 6467(Lexington torp damage) or to 5350 (middle ground damage) Part of the reason why Midway players stick to DBs or strike aircraft is becasue their TBs suck. Incredibly wide spread, with very slow torps, and low single torp damage makes them effectively worse than Lexington's TBs. With Midway you are lucky if more than 4 torps hit a maneuvering target while you could hit all 3 with Lexington, causing more damage. By changing the TBs damage, but also reducing the amount of torps dropped in a single run the TBs are an actual upgrade but also not game-breaking. And with actually usable TBs players wont be targeting DDs as much as its easier to hit CAs and BBs with TBs. So am I crazy? Stupid? Or do i have a good idea here, even if it is just a starting point?
  8. Hello all, Why does the midway cost upwards of 270,00k per battle to service? It is freakin' nuts. Even on my best games I lose money unless I am running a premium account then I break even.
  9. Bad enough that my Midway got torped by some stupid cartoon weeb boat on its maiden voyage because of the awful CV controls. Then I look at my service costs and my 25% deduction, while listed, was not counted... Unless I'm missing something the cost for service should show 135,000 instead of 180,00. No problems with my Lion's costs in the next battle.
  10. I have both of them and I love my Midway. Even in the worst of games I break 100k in it, and my damage record is 293k. But Hakuryu just feels so much worse than Midway. Yes I know some players get 200k+ and even up to 300k in it, but the days of it being a really fun and enjoyable ship with version 0.8.0 are over. Nerfs targeted it way too hard and now it's a joke compared to Midway. 4 drop torpedoes are unusable so might as well use 2 drop. Dive bombers seem pretty RNG dependent even with good angles and the enemy teams are always in tight clusters that shred your dive and torpedo bombers with no chance of doing anything about it, any AA DD, cruiser, or battleship is death to you unless its a tier 8. I sincerely hope WG can make Hakuryu better again. For those of you that haven't gotten a tier 10 CV yet, I recommend Midway. Midway can push home at least one strike even in the most AA infested places, is good at starting fires and has pretty good alpha too, so if you lose your whole squad at least you did something with it. Please make Hakuryu good again.
  11. I've only started tracking since 20 Feb but the Haku is falling way behind in games played as of 26 Feb. The nerf to it was pretty significant in the first hotfix. Current Haku games played: 36542 Current Miday games played: 50537 That is a difference of 13995 or 38% more games in favor of Midway. On 20 Feb games played were relatively close at 32520 for Haku and 37957 for Midway. It seems maybe the nerf was too much for Haku as CV drivers are playing the Midway at an accelerated rate. I think things will only get worse for the Haku when the Audacious goes live.
  12. So, if this is in the wrong section mods - please just move it to the right one. And a forward for any WG staff looking at the idea: This is meant as something to add to a sense of history to certain CV's in the game NOT to be used to correct historical gaffs like those now on Kaga. This SHOULD NOT be a substitute for putting THE RIGHT planes on a premium CV and where possible tech tree ones, the first bloody time, or if need be putting the ship down a tier or in the unlikely case of such a need, up a tier. That out of the way, in all my testing on CV's there is one thing I can't say I don't like - the Lex's Halloween skin. Much as I'm the history guy when it comes to CV's I'm not against fun things like a skin that changes the planes, that can be removed for normal camo's, and have the right planes. And it was nice to see that, while they need some tweaks I think to weapon placement (maybe even mess with the look of them), it still changes the planes. And that got me thinking, especially with UK CV's on the way. Plenty of people want Ark Royal and to send it against Bismarck, though we have no idea what Wargaming is going to do with it. Lexington, as some of us know, is really Saratoga and one of the older CV's, Shokaku was part of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Midway's served into the early jet age, etc. So - what if we applied this concept of the Halloween skins to more historical skins for the CV's? Sure things like AA and all would be wrong, unless things could be added/removed visually with no actual effect on gameplay. Example being a ship has 20x 20 mm guns, but the "historical" skin they were instead 15x .50 cal's, so visually - you only see the 15x .50 cal's, but from a gameplay standpoint the DPS/range/etc are still the 20x 20 mm's and still able to disable them hitting where you normally would. But you could actually make Lexington Lexington circa the battle of Coral Sea, Shokaku flying her planes she did on December 7th 1941, Depending where she is tiered Yorktown maybe runs her Midway look and planes, Ark Royal, has her aircraft from when she disabled Bismarck so now you two can attack one with swordfish torpedo bombers - without having to worry that they are tier 4/6 in the tech tree as they are still technically your normal tier 6/8 planes, but with the appearance of the Swordfish. Some of these CV's saw a bunch of different planes over 5, 10, 20+ years of service, and while sure there's some classes with 20+ ships you can cover them all, but most are 1 or 2. Just a random idea I had a few days ago. I think it could be neat, and great to have for anniversary events of these battles as mission rewards or maybe campaign rewards that people can earn first - and then later on if they weren't around or couldn't get it the ability to buy it. The satisfaction of disabling a Bismarck's rudder with a torpedo, without the possible rage of severely weak planes because game mechanics, a possible what if meeting of the Enterprise and Shokaku both as they were December 7th, or Lex and Shokaku as they were at Coral Sea.
  13. Nightlock_

    Midway jets :(

    This is the first line I ever grinded and the only reason i started playing WoWS in the first place. So first they remove the tier X dive bombers, and nerf them to [edited] tier 8 levels. And then they got rid of the f8f bearcats and now theyve gotten rid of the f7f Starfires too. This practically isnt even a tier 10 carrier anymore like wth. Why? Why this overnerf. Im still at the ranger and I like it. I rarely fight hiryus or kagas but when I do they dont give me much trouble except for saipan which is much harder to deal with. Is this line even worth grinding anymore?
  14. Avenge_December_7

    Midway AP or HE Dive Bombers?

    As I'm currently grinding through the Midway modules in co-op (I may be that one guy that likes Pensacola and Emerald, but even I'm not crazy enough to grind a stock tier 10 CV in randoms or ranked), I'm wondering exactly what type of dive bomber should I use? I realize that HE dive bombers are more versatile and can do things like break modules (especially AA modules) and stack DOT, but AP dive bombers can are less affected by AA and can nuke certain AA-heavy ships like Des Moines and Worcester, which HE dive bombers cannot do, not to mention you can sometimes force opponents to choose between using defensive fire on torpedo bombers or AP bombers. Which one is more worthwhile?
  15. A quote from the WOW post: However, in this historical period, "fire" could be bracketed out because the armaments carried by fighters of the opposing sides were comparable. So, only altitude, speed, and maneuvering remain. Interestingly, "speed" is mentioned in the other two parameters of Pokryshkin's formula. Altitude is the opposite side of speed. By exchanging the kinetic energy of an aircraft for potential energy, we can gain altitude as our speed increases, and vice versa. This "energy exchange" is where the lion's share of combat maneuvering—the third element of the formula— comes from. 1) A6M fighter had no decent weapon for shooting through the armor on a Wildcat, Hellcat, or Corsair armor. They had a light gun and a 20mm cannon with low ROF, velocity, and range. The Us planes carried .50 caliber guns that could rip through armor, pilot, and engine block. You've got to be kidding or fooling yourself about guns. 2) Early on is was found that the US fighters were all faster than the Japanese planes, especially in a climb, so we shot the Japanese planes down on one pass and sped away for altitude if we missed, then came back. US fighters did not get into "dogfights" with Japanese fighters. They also used the scissors maneuver to take advantage of the Zekes.. Hellcats had a 13:1 kill ratio on Zeroes. 3) USA was flying Bearcats and Mustangs from carriers by the end of the war (real airplanes). Not even the alleged A8M could keep up with that. To see 14 Corsairs go up against 15 Japanese fighters with no ships around, and the Corsairs shoot down 1 or 2 while losing all 14 Corsairs is beyond belief. On the wikipedia page for the wildcat: The Japanese ace Saburō Sakai described the Wildcat's capacity to absorb damage:
  16. So I finally achieved my dream of getting USS Midway and its... getting bullied by Hakuryu. Badly. I would probably attribute most of it to a disparity in skill, but I still don't feel equipped to fight 3x Tier X fighter squads in the first place. It feels like they're everywhere in one pack at all times. Spot them on left flank, shift to right, they're there too, waiting for me. And I'm not even stock. I waited to get enough Ship & Free EXP to get all the upgrades I needed (Tier IX F4U-4 and Tier X AP DB), plus the money and gold to retrain my commander and purchase upgrades (Air Group Mod. 1, 2, and 3, plus Concealment Mod) Also Worchester seems a little broken to me. This thing vaporizes full squads from what seems like 6-7 km out. Like erases them. Instantly. I'll keep at the grind, but during the meantime, what's the best way of going at it vs a Hakuryu? What's my strategy? Because what I'm trying now clearly isn't working.
  17. There are many CV players regard their planes as their weapons and their lives. Without Planes, CVs are useless. So maybe planes HP should be counted towards CV total HP? For e.g. if a CV is deplaned, his HP should be lower compared to a CV that is full of planes and each plane kill is also counted towards the DMG number one received when shooting down the planes. There are too many matches where one side lost just because they can't kill the CV in time. This fix will both rewards more for shooting down planes, plus, make CV survivablity more on-par with other ships in the game. Thought?
  18. anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

    Devblog ST. Balance changes

    In summary : Hipper ROF and turn buffs, Shimakaze concealement buff, Midway hangar nerf, Orion sigma nerf. edit : just noticed, somebody else has already posted this info (an hour ago).
  19. advice sought. I have been in several battles recently which have emphasised speed over airpower, 1st strike over scouting and air def. Should I be fitting flight control 1&2? (instead of fighter hp buffs air groups 1&2)