Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'planes'.

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
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • 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
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 21 results

  1. USS_Bacon

    Fighter Planes

    AI Fighter planes are already pretty good. If there are incoming torpedo bombers, and the ai fighter fails you, you are dead. That is why you should be able to manually control fighter planes. This is for all ship types with fighter planes.
  2. Knowing of course those who hate CV will be sure to chime in with all type of chatty banter, seriously WG/WoWS - this thing is turning into a steaming pile. Let's talk about the interaction of planes to mouse control - or really, the lack thereof. Let me first qualify myself though. Average player sometimes gets lucky. Have ground my way through IJN, USN, RN carriers to include all tiers including T10. Played a few games in them. Nothing spectacular but I do get lucky sometimes. Now back to the Rhein If she is an example of just how borked the planes will perform at T6, 8 and 10 then you aren't gonna draw many folks to them. IMO. The planes fly as if every pilot is drunk, not allowing for any precise control a "real" aircraft would allow, let alone compared to other national ships. Rocket planes - yuck. I want to point out I CANNOT SEE THE ***N RETICLE PLASTERED ON THE OCEAN IN ALMOST ANY LIGHTING CONDITIONS. IT'S HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE. I've asked and asked and asked some more for the ability to chose our Carriers' reticle color and brightness (BOLD). Nothing. IMO the more you "upgrade" your wonderous lighting effects, the worse it has become. Have I ranted enough about those two things? Let me TL;DR. Fix Rhein's flight controls and the reticle. tia
  3. Admiral_Bingo

    So fighter planes...

    Just popped into Ranked Sprint with my Implacable after getting the hang of it in randoms. I found out to my horror that whenever it comes to facing a CV with more planes per squadron (Enterprise for example), their fighters usually render my efforts to support friendly ships useless. Here's how it usually goes. 1. Enemy CV is approaching friendly DD with rocket planes. 2. I quickly drop fighters to support friendly BB/DD before the rocket planes arrive. 3. Rocket planes drop off a fighter and go away for a while. 4. Enemy fighter planes wipe out mine because it has a larger squadron. 5. Enemy CV then feasts on the DD/BB without any additional aa assistance from my fighters. This seems really frustrating to me because it basically makes my efforts to support my friendlies totally useless. At the end of the game, I had a bunch of angry players complaining that I didn't give aa support even though all aa support I was able to give by fighters was being blown out of the air by enemy fighters. I'm not sure if this is an issue with my tactics/gameplay or a flaw with the game mechanic with fighters in general but I like to hear what thoughts you guys might have. I feel that its quite unfair that just because a CV has a larger squadron, it will definitely blow yours out of the sky. Again I'm not sure this is some balance issue or its just me doing it wrong.
  4. I ask CV players, do you think the best CV players in game get the most salt. The bad one just play tier 4 CV. Do you roll your eyes when players say CV are easy and have everlasting fighters. Do you love the salt playing a CV. Because it always are fault win or lose. CV mains do you feel like your in your own click, the other players just don't understand us. Do you love troll ships? Well subs be the new troll. If so well you play it.
  5. I'm not sure where to report this and I could not find a way to put in a ticket regarding this, but the dive bombers on Ryujo carry no ammo underneath their wings. Instead, their AP bombs are attached to the white colored rocket planes (along with the rockets). Can someone in the graphics department fix this? Here are some screenshots to show what I am talking about: Where are the AP bombs? There should be one big one. Here are the rocket planes with rockets and... an AP bomb also or an extra gas tank? I think it is an AP bomb and it was moved to the wrong plane a few months ago. Does anyone know who might be the right person to contact about this? Thanks!
  6. Yesterday when attacking an enemy ship my planes were shot down before getting a shot off. One of those planes crashed into the target ship's port side at the intersection of deck and bridge. The plane exploded into a large fireball but did no damage. This should have caused significant damage since the crashing plane would still be laden with Avgas and rockets, bombs or torpedoes. @Kami I realize kamikaze suicide attacks aren't allowed but once the plane is dead the player has no control of it. In which case if that plane crashes into any ship enemy or ally or any destructible ground target that ship or target should be damaged. That damage should be commensurate with the planes fuel and weapons load. Fuel should cause a fire. Bombs and torpedoes penetration and blast damage. The this is a game not a combat simulator argument carries no weight here since near misses can damage/sink a DD and rounds fired before the ship or plane is destroyed still hit or miss the target or travel on until hitting an island or reach maximum range.
  7. StevebDancer

    CV Rework needed.

    I will break this down in to B# for bugs, P# for problems, S# for possible solutions.. These are all for CVs, here we go. -B1 CVs and planes do not reduce viability in cyclones. they stay the same.. (you know how to fix this). -B2 CVs can not tell when a ship hits AA consumable.. we just loose our planes.. -S1 a green area shows up for the ships AA range when they hit their AA consumable. -P1 CVs are dropping fighters everywhere, let me explain I had a CV drop a fighter squadron inside my CV's detection but out side my AA just to spot me, they do that for BBs too, and DDs.. 2nd they drop fighters right in front of my squadron or just out side my fighter squadron to kill my fighters or planes I am flying. This is very annoying.. -S1 when a CV player fly's with in 2-3km of a ally ship and is pointed at the ally. they press fighter squadron key and those fighters act like a catapult fighter for that ship. no dropping out side of that. so they can only be dropped on ally ships. If key is pressed outside of that a error message in chat shows up "must be with in 3 km and pointing at ally to use fighter squadron" -S2 fighter squadron can not spot ships.. -P2 CV being up tiered.. as you can tell by your data those CV run out of planes quick and don't do much damage at all. this must be balanced out some how.. -P3 What is the % of ships that are AA spec'ed. this means you do not have good skills that are used instead of AA skills.. please replace give good skills at tier 3 and 4. -P4 What is the purpose of giving a CV better maneuverability for hall upgrade, it is useless. give it something it can use. -S1 when hall is upgraded make CVs detection drop a bit instead of rudder shift. -S2 give CVs 1 extra plane for each type of squadron instead of rudder shift. -S3 slightly faster replenish of planes of each type of squadron, instead of rudder shift. -B3 Sling shot attacks that by pass most of the damage of ships AA.. where they time when to drop 1 set of bomb then use the invalienability to get close to a ship with good AA to drop on them with out loosing planes. -S1 increase time before ship can go back into a attack run after dropping ordinance would fix this.. -S2 take away the Invalienabiiity after the drop.. -P5 Flack clouds do tons of damage to all planes.. and makes complete walls of flack Which you can't avoid.. Flack clouds either land in front or on your planes.. -S1 all flack clouds explode randomly with in their range.. NOT JUST IN FRONT. -S2 shrink flack clouds so they are smaller then they could be easier to dodge and randomly in range of shell.
  8. Ok, WG I see you are trying to balance CVs but I feel you are not doing a good job.. I think you have to be more extreme. Here are a few ideas and will make a poll on it.. - 1st fighter squadrons dropped off of planes in flight have to be on ships and they follow that ship for their duration. (fixes issue of planes dropping on enemy DDs like radar.) - 2nd take that old skill you had about planes HP changes per tier of enemy CV. this is how it works: - Option 1 - Takes average tier of ships in match and if it is .75 to 1.24 tier more then CV's tier, the planes get a 10% bonus to health. if more then 1.25 higher then CV's tier it get a 18-22% boost to health. for slower speed and higher AA damages by ships. - Option 2 - Takes average tier of all ships in match and take # - CV tier then multiply it by .165. That number would be bonus health to all planes on CV.. if average is below CV's teir no change. - Option 3 - CV planes or ships in game DPS changes to what planes it is shooting at.. so a T7 ship shoot at a T6 would shoot at a penalty. and a T5 ship shooting at a T6 CV would get a boost.. the farther the tiers away from CV the more penalty or boost. this balances the planes and the ships.. - 3rd reduce number of attacks per squadron to 2 from 3 and take 3rd squardon of HP and add it to the planes of the 1st and 2nd.. - 4th reduce spotting distance of DDs by another 20-30% and no fighter spotting except by ship fighter (meaning no dropping fighters on a spot to continue spotting) - 5th This should be a given if planes are over a person concealed in smoke then the undetected planes can still be heard over the smoke. so they know the planes are waiting for the DD.... - 6th when AA consumable it hit the circle that where the drop will happen will double. this is a benefit for ships with AA and also tells CV driver AA was hit and need to back off or not do as much damage and loose more planes... Because we can not tell when AA is hit or not. also the ship should be green as if the ship dropped a fighter.. - 7th when a plane is shot down in a run to drop bombs/ missles/ torps. That plane is NOT replaced... it is a bonus to the ship for shooting down the plane.. so it might be 1 less bomb/ torp/ rocket or more but for someone who put in the captain skill and/or consumable. it would pay off. - 8th when a plane drops its load then view point slides right up to planes flying over head and that fixes slight shot of invulnerability. - 9th AA Flack puffs are shot in the sectors you have it but they need to explode at different ranges NOT ALWAYS IN FRONT.. as they fly through that zone they explode randomly in the front/ middle/ and far part of zone.. so flack clouds will have depth.. including direct hits on planes(like ships have detonations). will make it easier but detonations of planes can happen.. if you have ideas please type them down and work this out..
  9. Mr_Secondaries

    AA Theory Craft

    Hey all, Just curious what the community thinks is the better skill for anti-air (if you can only take one) AFT or MFAA?
  10. LowSpeed_US

    FPS drops

    To cut the the chase. FPS drops are significant when enemy planes are rendered around your ship. I've noticed 25-35+ FPS drops. This mostly occurs when there are more than 1 squadron around you (friendly or enemy). Pre- 0.8.0 patch this was bearable manageable, now it's giving me down to mid 20 FPS in peak moments in battles.
  11. Okay, compared to the overall massive balance issues, this is minor. But it is seriously annoying that with the focus shifted to planes as if they were our ships, that there are details about placement and all that are just completely botched and I can't fathom a reason why. For Starters "Lexington" and it's planes - Wargaming mounting of HVAR rockets - The worst part being if you look - the actual mount for the rocket is there on the wings. Which is where an HVAR rocket should be mounted. That is the proper instillation of HVAR's here. Then you have the SB2C DB's - I haven't gotten quite a good enough shot to confirm they are in fact 1000 lb M-65 GP bombs - but that part is somewhat irrelevant because the SB2C wing hardpoints for bombs were rated only for 500 lb bombs, the 1000 lb bombs would have been carried in the internal bay. And for the guy who wants to say "But Tiny Tim's weigh more and were carried like that" It used a different mount, and the weight distribution is different. Actually surprised the Corsairs with Tiny Tim's are actually right. Seeing the count of rockets on the F4U at tier 9 - already know it's wrong simply on count, and I'd take a guess that the 2 center mounts are used like above. But then we have this - the F8F Not the greatest shot I know - but the obvious center mount rocket is obvious unlike the extra rocket jammed on to the port wing more or less clipping with the inboard most rocket. Forgoing the fact the F8F was limited to 4, and there are plenty of aircraft options in the attack role that could carry 10 and that applies even to the F4U at 9, hell, the AD-1 you already have at 9 has the hard points for it, you haphazardly jammed 1 in and the other is mounted wrong - really, really wrong. Personally I say remove it for a plane that could carry that many or change the distribution of rockets and aircraft to match, but could you not at least go with a more believable and logical 5 per wing? No picture at the moment, brought it up elsewhere - Saipan's Tiny Tim's - the center mounting is wrong, didn't carry 3, just go to 3 planes with 2 rockets - it's fair on Lexatoga, and I will gladly trade the extra 3x2 for 2x3 as a Saipan owner. Granted at this point I don't think 3x3 would really put it over the top either cause it's not exactly stellar and still just puts it on par with Lex and still the same number of rockets. Also no picture at the moment but unless something changed - IJN torpedoes have the wrong stabilizer for single engine planes. The Box Type in this link is what was used for single engine planes - like the B5N. Those are the immediate glaring ones that have really kinda bothered me as it is from the start (The Lexington ones kinda put me over as I decided to take the Halloween camo off finally after wondering why I could only see 3 rockets per wing), aside from other certain ones pertaining to Kaga's uptiering. Something that would be a nice touch though would actually to also have right squadron markings, or closer, tied to the ships and planes. Especially if say we added a couple of the Essex classes, the other Yorktowns, etc. In Lexington by which I mean Saratoga's case while she never had Corsairs, These were the markings for the F6F fighters Saratoga had in February 1945. The current marking are, somewhat ironically given I'm the guy who's suggested it as a premium without them, the markings of F4U's of USS Shangri-La. You wanna focus this game play around the planes - fine. But then at the very least as much care and detail should be applied to their appearance and all as any ship in the game because especially with the longer flight times were going to be spending a lot of time looking at them. And while I'm sure say a Colorado player would appreciate the extra barrel per turret in terms of damage increase would be distracted and possibly annoyed by it being mounted on the roof of the turret if they weren't going after it cause history. This is arguably my biggest gripe with the rework - the seeming lack of care about CV's, their history, and details like any of the other 3 classes. Removing odd tiers, Kaga, and some of these feel like forcing ships to fit something easy for you guys, screw history and all that.
  12. Russel_Heinowski

    the new cv air planes suck

    is it just me or do the the Cv Air planes suck [edited]even tho the old way was boring but at lest You could do more like actually sink a ship but as it is now your planes get all shot down be for you can drop a bomb or a Torpedo now the cv are useless as hell in battles
  13. I have always enjoyed playing this game with the carriers. However, they have become no fun and if you want to continue to give back large amounts of credits you won, then buy a carrier. They have included a service fee of about 240,000 credits for each battle and then on top of that, they add in fees for replacing lost planes and other stuff. Has anyone won any positive credits. Even with premium play its a joke. Imagine someone trying to get ahead without having premium play. I have sent in many responses to how unfair these carriers are and I get these ridiculous responses telling that i can add all this upgrades. How the hell can you add upgrades when you continue to go backwards in credits. Even in the public test arena, where you can add every upgrade, you lose all your plans before you can even get close to making an attack. As the previous post said , death to the aircraft carriers. As much as I wish that was not the case, but it is true. I sold all mine. No fun anymore. What do you say if you read this. Let me hear your comments.
  14. Maybe make the ability to press 4 or something and you can manually fire your AA guns so you can do something about oncoming planes instead of having hoping your AA shoots them down, and shooting at them would be fun. Pressing 4 again could switch to different sectors of the AA coverage, kind of like how 3 switches torp options. If you are under heavy fire, you could just not press 4, and the AI could control the AA as it does currently. As def AA goes, maybe it could be changed to increase RoF of manually controlled AA guns, or increase damage. I just think this might make CVs more fun to play against, and maybe people wouldn't hate them (as much) as they are now
  15. It has come to the WG's attention that there is (was) a tactic where Hakuryu could endlessly spam torpedo bombers and rack up very high damage very quickly with minimal losses. The hotfix has stamped out this strategy hard, but I don't fully think it is the right way to go. Sure, the strategy could be a bit overpowered at times and must be very frustrating for BB players, seeing as there is a very significant drop in BB players I see in randoms now, but it was sort of the Hakuryu's thing, a strategy that actually worked most of the time. One of the goals of the rework was to make CVs more noob friendly, and they initially succeeded. But stamping out this strategy completely I feel hurts the big picture too much. It just takes it to the other extreme, where AA on all ships is extremely powerful, torpedo bombers are much more tedious now and you will have lots of difficulty trying to get even over 100k damage in a game now. The huge nerf to the aiming reticle time makes it very hard to hit anything combined with your planes being shredded by even a single cruiser. It's kinda sad as seeing someone get so much damage with a strategy that continuously worked gave me hope that the CVs would not be completely useless in this rework, but alas now they are mere support ships basically. I feel this strategy should retain it's effectiveness, but should just get some minor adjustments. The aiming reticle should be normal again, AA damage should be toned down a bit, and for heaven's sake that nerf to the F spam just makes all the planes die immediately when they try to retreat. I feel there are better ways to combat this, without just removing the effectiveness completely. CVs historically were very powerful ships, and in wows they should not just be mere support vessels, but have real attacking power like battleships and cruisers do. The main problem seems to be that WG goes too extreme with each of these changes, if the CVs are too powerful, immediately make them super weak and buff the AA so that it shreds everything. A little more balance would go a long way here.
  16. Going world of warplanes 2.0 is fine, I just need to switch ships to planes to play the game !
  17. kukailimoku

    AA to strong for CV play?

    Hello all, An opinion question: At what tier do we think the Ack-Ack of the ships become too high for effective (i.e. fun) play of carrier strike aircraft? A different way to ask the same question: What AA value of ships is the cut-off between pretty fun to torp the enemy and dammit-all-my-planes-get-shot-down-before-the-drop-point ? Already in my VI Ryujo I'm finding matches where I find many ships are likely to shot down most of my planes before I can release ordnance. In more then a few MMs I'll find that I can really only realistically hope to attack a couple/three CAs or CLs - anything else is likely to shot the kr@p outta my planes. (of course DDs aren't a AA threat and I guess I could chase those around with my planes, but its also stupidly hard to get mucho hits on those, as well as a "waste" of CV power to target DDs). So I'm asking this question of the community's opinion because I'm at the decision point on whether or not to buy CVs above VI. Seems like a lot of grinding/credits wasted on something that might only be intense frustration as I watch two sorties of my planes evaporate. Are higher tier planes able to better absorb (in proportion!) the higher tier ack-ack? Seems to me that ack-ack increase each tier is pulling out ahead in front of planes' robustness. Your thoughts???
  18. So, if it's not obvious by now that have seen my posts - I do not like this rework Wargaming is thinking of trying, it has some truly bad ideas, while rehashing already tried bad ideas in a new package, and half the changes they will have to make to what they showed off work even a little, are the same changes needed to what we have right now to fix that - otherwise the Wargaming rework is pretty much doomed to fail in most, if not all, of it's goals. So, at this point I'm working on two versions of a rework, both of which should alleviate most, if not all the problems while accomplishing the same goals Wargaming's rework wants to accomplish. This version keeps the system pretty much 100% RTS, as it is now. The other version (that I'll post up after I refine some things more in my head) is a bit more of a hybrid of what they want to do, and the current RTS system (with the changes below). That out of the way, let's jump to it. Also, fore warning - this is a massive text wall; if you've no desire to read through the thing, leave now. Addressing the "fighter focus" and balance - One thing I have to agree with Wargaming on is that the gameplay has become heavily focused around fighters. It's become about who can take out the enemy fighters first, so they can just delete the remaining planes at will, with time overly spent on strafe, dodge, counter strafe, etc. Which, all of this has led to the lion's share of the "skill gap" between average, good, and top tier CV players. It's who deletes planes first. Simply put - strafing is and always has been the issue, at least in it's current form. The ability to press a button and delete 1/3 of a CV's entire hanger is just not healthy, poor design, etc. It'd be like a BB pressing alt to permanently knock out another BB's turret(s). However, unlike some, I'm not advocating for it's full removal - instead I say we take it back to basics and drastically reduce the DPS increase. Instead of what is likely close to or even more than a cruisers DF AA - we take it down to MAYBE 10-20% increase in DPS. It may still aid in taking an extra plane out a little sooner, but overall, this would change it back to what it was once about, hampering the accuracy of attack aircraft by braking up the formation essentially. In fighter vs fighter, it might be able to give you a slight edge if it knocks out an enemy plane, but at the cost of a chunk of ammo. But your planes being strafed will be far less worrisome, you might lose the same couple and 1 extra you would were they to click your planes and engage from a group of 30 planes, not most/all of the planes. Other than possibly scouting, this shifts fighters far more to a defensive role as opposed to what is best described as "Offensive Defense", where players will more likely send them to an area/ship to defend, really only worrying about active use if the enemy sends the bombers in a larger group (as if they are sent individually, the auto engage from having it defend a ship is far more practical). However for this to work, we have to address a key issue that anyone who has played tier 4 and 5 CV's all too well - the Balance of fighters. Simply put - the DPS of USN fighters, combined with the number of them, is too high. There are points where the difference between stock shoot down chances between USN and IJN are 10% or more, by far too high, especially when USN gets more ammo, at times better or as good speed, and slightly better AA protection with a lower damage drop off from aircraft losses. USN vs USN may be pure RNG - but USN vs IJN is almost always in the USN's planes favour, heavily. An example, Lexington's fighters have 63 DPS, 6 planes, 378 DPS, against the N1K's 1660 hp, is 22% chance to down a plane. The reverse, 70 DPS, 4 planes, 280 DPS, against 1700 HP - 16% chance. And this is one of the more even ones. Keeping this simple at the moment, the F4U's DPS should drop to about 42/43 DPS if we change nothing else. This would give it a 15.1/15.5% chance to down an enemy N1K, and even if it lost a plane, it'd still be over 12%, still less than the 6%+ gap we currently have. Which, keep in mind, the N1K will burn out it's ammo sooner. Realistically, I would tweak things a bit more, especially depending on a couple things, but actually buff USN HP slightly, maybe, if needed, a slight ammo increase, and of course, the DPS nerf, while increasing IJN DPS slightly, and maybe nerfing it's ammo a little, if needed. At which point, I'd also change the gaps between tiers. So, say, Kaga's A6M2's vs Hiryu's M5's. 44 DPS, 4 planes, 176 DPS vs 1410 HP - 12.4% chance. The reverse, 57, 4 planes, 228 DPS vs 1210 - 18.8%. Especially crazy when you imagine the difference is a pair of slightly bigger MG's on a plane slightly less agile. So, again, more simplistic version of change, buff it to 53 DPS for the A6M2, which, when combined with DFE, would up it to 16.5%, as opposed to the stock 15% it would be at that number - higher tier still retains an edge, but less of one. Meaning perhaps less issues of inter-tier matches of fighters being lopsided, if desired, especially given nations choices in weapons, mobility of planes, etc, the numbers could be even closer, as many after a point did not deviate far from consistent weapons, particularly the US. Which, brings me to my next point, as well as one of those things changes I'd make would depend on, is "National Flavour" - what makes these fighters different from one another. To which, at least with the 4 nations I can build ship and plane tree's for (USN, IJN, UK, Ger) see two models. The first which I will call "pure flavour" is just that - they have a super specific flavour, they stick to 100% throughout. In which USN is the "Tank" - best overall endurance (HP, ammo, likely DPS loss) but lowest DPS, IJN highest DPS, but more fragile and lacking ammo, with UK and Germany falling in the middle, UK closer to IJN and Germany closer to USN in what they lean on (DPS vs endurance). USN having 6 planes, as now, UK and Germany having 5, and IJN, 4, as now. Though there is a variation that Germany has more planes (7), with DPS similar to USN, if not a tad higher, but lower ammo. With this, generally, USN could play a little more aggressive, not worried as much with AA, than the other 3 if it scouts or wants to be a little more proactive finding enemy aircraft. Though it may take a little longer to knock them out of the sky.Where as IJN can also be more aggressive in that in can knock planes down faster, but has less ammo and HP so will have to rearm more frequently and has to watch enemy AA more. With UK and Germany being able to kinda juggle both a bit better. Really comes down to what the player thinks is best as while it can do offense and defense, they are still different ways of doing it. The other way, is what I'll call "Realistic Flavour" - At lower tiers, it's going to start at more the same as above and what we have now, sort of, in that USN has higher HP, lower DPS, IJN is reversed, etc. However, as the tiers go up, and the planes start to become more and more similar, especially around tier 8 (where USN would really be the last truly holding to it's flavour till the next tier) while they still have hints of their flavours, the aircraft are more similar as designs, thinking, and needs started to overlap. So, when you get to tier 8, you have the F4U, still using 6 .50 cal MG's (as per the current ingame model), so it maintains it's lower DPS and higher ammo count, where as the UK, German, and IJN lines have switched to a later Spitfire, Fw-190, and the N1K respectively - all armed with 4x 20 mm cannons (and additional MG's for the 190) giving them more similar DPS with lower ammo counts, however IJN still has a bit more than the other two (planes were still very agile), and Germany still more ammo than the other two (as the synced weapons would slow usage down), with USN in the next tier going to the F4U with 4x 20 mm's (necessitating an ingame model change, the tier 9 planes on Midway still use a 6 mg configuration on the model). With the possibility that there's a slight shift at the higher tiers of IJN having slightly more HP than UK (more durable planes than earlier, combined with radial engines, something most if not all UK fighters would lack, using more easily disabled liquid cooled engines) and USN edging out Germany in DPS but having slightly less ammo than it (as the German higher tier aircraft still use prop synced weapons, lowering RoF). They would still maintain a flavour but, as in reality to a degree, becomes less pronounced over time. The alpha strikes, a DoT base, and further reducing the skill gap - So, when Wargaming last decided to add more "action" to the CV gameplay, they gave us Manual Drops, arguably the lesser part of the skill gap issue compared to strafe, also added the last time they wanted to add more action. Now? Now we have players dropping near 60k alpha strikes on BB's with a single group of TB's from Midway, Hak's unleashing a wall of 8500 damage torps at ships. All because they press alt and drop on the ships doorstep. Again, an unhealthy, untenable, situation. However, with ships in smoke no longer spotted even with AA going, some of the tighter map designs, and the occasional need to drop further out, we can't simply remove this. Even at lower tiers this has caused issues, especially in the learning process. To which, the solution is an inevitability that has always been for the RTS system, that is inevitable even with what Wargaming proposes, and in both scenario's, leads to CV's becoming more about DoT and less about straight up alpha strikes, which is something I agree with. And that inevitability is - CV alpha damage has to be nerfed. And I'm not talking 5%, 10%, 20% either. TB's I'm talking around 80% give or take, 75% or there about on AP bombs, HE bombs, given few, if any, can hit the citadel of a ship, are the least affected by this at around say 40%, least on USN bombs. And I'm going to get into the flavour stuff as well here with the same 4 lines I mention above. When it came to attack aircraft development, can a bunch of UK planes carry a bomb? Yes, but few, if any, were really dedicated dive bombers. UK's thing really was torps, even more so than IJN, so with this line, they'd deal the most damage at 2000 per torp max, with 5 planes per group in an arrow/chevron formation with some fairly decent sized gaps - useful against a BB, or a bigger/slower cruiser, but not so much the more agile ones and DD's, though they can still score hits because like IJN, they'd be coming from more than one side. And they are completely reliant on these for the actual damage. IJN would be a bit more mixed, still more a capital ship predator, but has those DB's as well. There torps in terms of spread would be unchanged, but only top out around 1500 damage. Meanwhile barring a "mix and match" ability (aka, with USN right now being able to use 1 group AP and one group HE DB's instead of 2 of one), would lower IJN damage for DB's some, but give them S-AP bombs, or from what I'm told, similar to what GZ has for HE where it's like an "IFHE" bomb. Unless they can in fact make it that even if it's default you have 1 of each (as Japan did use in it's attacks a mix of Semi AP and HE bombs). Or have a separate branch using mostly DB's with a mix of SAP and HE and maybe a TB group and leave the mainline otherwise unchanged beyond torp damage and other listed changes. USN should really become the cruiser hunter that can maybe go after BB's. When it has torps, damage caps out at 1000 on that tight spread it gets, where as the AP bombs are brought down to maybe 1.5-2k Per hit, with HE dropped to about 5-6k damage (meaning were it to score a pen, it'd deal 1980 damage or less), maybe even lower as USN HE DB's need an accuracy buff, and maybe a slight nerf on AP accuracy. Sure you can take AP or DB to gear more against a BB, but the heavier, now more accurate HE bombs are geared more at cruisers and general purpose attack. Meanwhile, Germany, having really 0 real TB development, would lack TB's in the line, but have more, very accurate DB's (much like now) that deal maybe around 1000 per hit average so around maybe 3k damage on HE bombs. These would be really geared at hunting DD's, and simply burning down the other ships with fires and the sheer volume of hits, almost like the very thing they hunt, a DD. With the lowered damage, without a detonation, only the most unlucky/bad DD players should have any real fear of being taken out in a single shot, not counting resulting fire or floods that stick. These are also rough numbers for the higher tier stuff, lower tier or even these could be higher or lower depending on what exactly is needed to keep things in check. But the overall factors on damage being partially role, line "flavour", and most importantly the more accurate, the lower the damage, the less accurate the higher the damage - same as BB's, cruisers, and DD's. As to the aircraft themselves, Either IJN's planes would take an HP nerf, or USN get a significant buff. These would go back to the old ways of having numbers (in terms of groups) and speed to try and get through AA ad hit a target. Enough HP to not be useless paper tigers in the rain, but the lowest of all attack planes. I'm thinking, insane as it may sound, Germany have the next most, at 7 groups at the top tier, with break out depending on the exact loadouts we have and all. They as well will be a little more speed based, likely not quite as fast as IJN, but would still be a bit more about overwhelming a target. But the goal would also be to make sure they are just accurate enough to score some hits consistently on a DD, like at least 1 hit per group, but not just wipe it out in a nightmarish blitzkrieg strike. Still, admittedly, working on Germany's because of the likely change from Ju-87 to Fw-190 variants in the bombing role, unless we went really insane near top tier to Ju-88's. UK, the next line likely to release, least of another nation, is significantly easier, a good mix of speed and HP, get in, hit the ships, get out, likely maybe 6 groups like USN at the top. Solid enough to get through to hit a BB, but may want to think twice if a cruiser is nearby. USN however would have the highest HP. The planes may not be the fastest, quite possibly the slowest, but have the durability to go into the heaviest AA, and just kinda ram through it. If say, IJN is the rapier, - USN is the battering ram. Designed to knock out those AA guns and just wear ships down with fires and hits. With as stated above, the idea being that like otherlines in the trees and game, they have something they focus more on as a target - UK/capital ships, USN/Cruisers, Germany/DD's, IJN/more mixed - but is still effective against the other types, just not ideal. Lower Alpha damage takes out those one hot strikes unless you get a det or sufficient DoT going, while also allowing manual drop to stay and further close the skill gap because a noob hitting 2/6 as opposed to the pro's 6/6 will only be a difference of 2000 damage vs 6000 instead of 20k vs 60k. We keep our groups so we can actually attack multiple targets, stagger strikes, etc, and develop flavours based around aircraft type and group numbers. And the damage shift is more toward the DoT doing most of the damage, not necessarily the bombs and torps. Which if need be, DoT's can be adjusted (honestly, they kinda need a slight adjustment) and maybe we see DCP/repair CD's reduced closer to the levels of Gascogne/Mass. Loadouts - The shortest thing likely on this wall of a post - every ship gets 2 options, AS and Strike, other than maybe the beginning tiers. Tiers 4 and 5, maybe 6, generally stick with 1,x,x setups. Tiers 7 and 8, maybe 9 have AS ad strike setups of 2,x,x and 1,x,x respectively, and tier 10 (if 9 isn't similar) has AS and Strike as 3,x,x and 2,x,x. So, at tier 8, Lex would have 2,0,2 and 1,1,2 as it's setups, and Shokaku having 2,2,2 and 1,3,2 as it's setups. And before anyone loses their minds with that Shokaku bit it's an example, and even if done were talking with torp planes doing at best 1/4 the damage they do now. We,the players, should have an option, do we want a little extra ability to scout and cover the team, or a little more damage. And, should we encounter the opposite setup, knowing we are down a fighter or up a fighter but down on attack planes, adjust accordingly. Spotting, fires, and AA with a bit of survivability - Wargaming feels CV's offer too much vision, hilarious really when you have ships that get to the fight just as fast because no arming time at match start, with double the spotting range, aren't auto spotted 8 km out, have no automated defense against them unless spotted at the roughly 5-6 km they can sneak into and the ship has secondaries that reach that far and that's not even counting radar that can light up 4x4 sections of a map through an island with zero counter at all. Okay, fine, well, there's an easier solution then this rework making us use 1 group at a time - lower the aerial spotting ranges, particularly or better yet exclusively, those of DD's. Go look up map sizes you'll find most are between 36 km-45km I think it is. or, 3.6-4.5km squares. Meaning you drop DD's to around 1 km spotted by air range not only are we in even some of the shortest AA ranges, so they can open up if they want, but that leaves, if were dead center of a square, about a km in any direction, in that same square, they can hide in. Just as hard, if not harder, then finding the damn things in a storm, not that spotting a smart DD especially late game is particularly easy as it is. You want to lower it on other ships too fine, but given most of the bent out of shape on this one is over DD's, make it that much harder for us to spot them. problem solved. Not the first time they changed detection ranges. You want to make scouting harder, by all means, make it harder so maybe I won't have to hear about "go scout there" as much as well as the follow up whining that while my planes scouted an area, like they asked, they got hit by attack planes or couldn't bomb the ship they wanted me to. Fires, this has always been an all or nothing deal for CV's and I think that needs to change. For starters, undoing the nerf that made CV's easier to set on fire. The second would be to get rid of the "Emergency Takeoff" skill, and just make that a built in skill or a basic mechanic of the class. No other type has to stop firing because they are on fire, neither should we. We should have the reload penalty yes, but not out right shutdown. Third is that while I get the fact we have aviation fuel on our ships - the 24% hp per fire needs to go. I don't mind it being higher than a BB and the rest, but this is just way too high. Especially when you consider that we only get 4 flag slots, not the 8 of others, and unlike a BB, we do not get a repair, at any tier. If they would like to give us 8 flag slots and a repair, fine, 24% can stay. And even then I'd still say at least knock it down to 21%. And on the AA front, this needs the most change of this section. For starters no matter what direction we go, lower tier ships need later AA upgrades they received, or ones created for them, that match the planes they are going against these days, not the AA they had when we had Biplanes into tier 7. While on the reverse, top tiers can use some dialing back of their DPS from the days when we had jets blowing through AA. Carriers basically use early war-post war planes, and the AA generally should match. If we give those ships lower down the heavier AA, and adjust plane HP right, you get a more consistent line of AA increasing and plane HP as well, allowing for smoother transitions and CV's that are +2 not waltzing through AA barely scathed and -2 CV's not having there planes completely slaughtered. There'd still be a noticeable difference facing planes your own tier, higher tier, and lower tier, but not as drastic and frustrating. I also think that perhaps, we need to make a bit of a tweak on build and skills for AA, to which I think the best answer, though, not an ideal one, is to effectively make a secondary build and an AA build the same thing. That is, AFT is unchanged, BFT well, that goes back to 10% to AA and maybe drop it back to a 2 point skill, or buff it's reload to 20% as well and keep it at 3 points, the slot 3 upgrades to AA and secondaries range are combined to a single upgrade and manual AA and Manual Secondaries become one skill, call it what you want. At the very least, BB's and most cruisers going for such a build even with no CV present would still have some enhanced ability against ships, even if not the most ideal. With the only other thing being to just remove AA builds altogether, with the max AA/secondary range and MB range on DD's/Atlanta gaining that 20% to base, debatable on BFT staying or going, remove manual AA and make the module as I said upgrade both ranges, unless that's removed as well and simply just max the range of secondaries and AA with that and AFT removed, maybe have whatever reload/DPS for weapons either with or without BFT be the stock number and drop that skill. Just have the max AA range and whatever AA you got, and then just ability to focus. Another thing to consider is when it comes to air power, if even some of the nerfs I've put forth to it leaves it still too much, yet buffing elsewhere just breaks and sets us back where we are now, adding a single charge Df AA - with no multiplier just one meant to scatter the planes, to ships other than cruisers may not be a terrible idea. In a pinch, give a BB or DD the ability to better dodge/mitigate an attack if caught alone with no cover, call it a "mulligan button". But after that one, you best find a cruiser, with their more effective version, or other AA help of some form. The ideal defense in the future, same as it is now, should be stick near your team - safety in numbers. However I will also say this is one area where I would like to see their concept from the rework - planes having HP and AA actually doing damage, as well as the "sector control", actually built in to what we have. Make the AA like secondary guns popping off into the air (which would work even better if you combine those skills as one since now they'd be even more similar, maybe enhances all AA gun accuracy x% instead of double DP gun damage), and have the ability to intensify the AA to one side or the other (or maybe have this replace selecting a target as how AA is increased beyond just normal), still a bit more RNG vs skill, though, in the case of the non-CV player, a bit more control over their AA and all, and leaves the ability for a CV to choose to hit from two sides so potentially not all AA is hammering everything as it goes side to side attacking like in the rework. For as much as I bash Wargaming's rework idea, this is one of the few good ideas they had in it. Again, a good idea, not sure how their version works - carriers being rearmed after losses. I think CV's should start with their normal load, say, 72 planes. However, when either a type, or actual plane count, reaches 0 - a countdown timer starts on getting replacements. However, were talking minutes. So, if you manage to lose all your lanes in say, the first 5 minutes - you better hope the match isn't over in the next 2-5 minutes. I can't hammer down a time on this one, but it needs to be long enough that something like Kaga, stuck with tier 6 planes against tier 9 AA, can afford to attack those higher tier ships, and not be absolutely boned by losses in a 15 minute match, but some dunce that flys his squads in a Hak right at 3 AA build Des's in a 6 minute match regrets it, heavily. Captain skills - No matter what version of rework it is - this is going to need some overhauling. I'm going to start with the most mandatory skill of all CV's AS - wherein there are two options here. The first is, with reworking fighters and attack plane damage, rework the skill that it adds a TB to the group and a DB, but no fighter. The change in DPS makes the skill as is absolutely mandatory. And no matter what balance changes you make to fighters, the additional one will always make it mandatory, so, it needs to go. And with attack planes dealing far less damage, an extra TB won't be over kill anymore so it can have that addition back. Now it's a choice of, do you take the skill, adding more to your attack per group, but risking running out of planes a bit faster, or trade the attack power to reduce losses, know you have x reloads, and invest the points elsewhere. The other is we straight up remove the skill. Given it needs to become a mechanic, and is currently worthless as it's better to invest in premium DCP, Emergency Takeoff needs to go, maybe replaced with a skill that lowers the penalty from being on fire to reloads. AA build skills I think need to either go and just be more or less directly integrated to the ships, or they need to all be combined that AA and Secondary builds are the same thing. EvM - skill needs to lose the speed penalty, or at minimum drastically reduce it, and reduce the HP increase but instead of one way make it going in and out they have the hp boost. Keep the detectability thing if you want, switch it with ERG skill, making it a 2 point skill, and ERG 1 point again. And buff ERG to 20% DPS buff. ASE is the one CV related skill I have 0 issues with. That or replace ERG with something a bit more useful, what, I'm not sure. Side note - planes with rockets This is something I've been for, and would like to see implemented. However, at this time, I'm not sure HOW they would be implemented in this form, beyond low damage, even against a DD, but knocks out modules, AA, etc well and starts fires. is there a third setup option in certain lines where it replaces a type in the setup, like maybe strike Lex becoming 1,1,1,1, does it replace TB's or DB's, is it somehow tied to fighters? Something I want to see, the how I'm not sure of, especially if Wargaming apparently can't give us one group of AP bombs and one of HE. That said, there are exactly 3 nations I know of that carried rockets to fire at ground/sea targets in any real volume only two of which may show up in game really - USN planes could carry the 5 inch FFAR and HVAR, and I do believe some Royal Navy planes had the ability to carry RP-3's, ones that would see use in a UK CV line. Only other ones I know of are Russian aircraft, use of actual air to ground/sea rockets seems at best limited for Germany, I know of none for Japan, and no clue about France and Italy. So, barring a Russian CV line - I'd prefer it stay as USN and UK only with an option to use rockets. Anyway, that is my long winded post on how I at least would address the issues Wargaming wants to with the rework, without moving away from the RTS format. And I know it's liable to get hate from players on all sides but, is what it is. I may have forgotten a couple things given I took breaks and all so this took hours to write and may have forgotten something. The way it's written out makes it look like a ton, but in reality, it's a lot of more simple changes as opposed to full out re-imagining. And as far as the "Cinematic" look - seriously, just hit shift/Z with a squadron selected and that is EXACTLY the same view as what they show in the rework demo just no damage stages, which they could add, and reduced flak, an even easier add. What we have now is more than fixable, people just have to be willing to do it. At some point I'll post up my Hybrid idea, though, that may end up way, way shorter than this monster as I may just go over basics and point to sections from this thread. And if Wargaming staff is going to say "keep rework talk in the rework thread" - well I have no problems posting this wall in there if it means they'll bloody look at it.
  19. jags_domain

    Idea for planes?

    WG can you change the formation of the planes. You have a v formation but planes dont fly that way. If you make it an inverted V by pitting the point in the front it would be real. Also with the DB they need to be flyong above 10k feet. And then DB started there attack run they would roll upside down then begin there dive. If you do it your way the piloit would red out. Thiz will make game play different betweeb DB and TB. As it stands right now they look the same. Also there has to be nave point for the ship and pmanes. We cant see how I get my plane here or there. We need to be able to send our planes were we won't. Also I would really like some to type of fighter combat.
  20. Florendo19

    Is AA worth it?

    So I had played several games with defensive AA equipped on my Gearing when I decided to switch to engine boost because I was not seeing any CVs and I wanted to be able to run away from radar and catch other ships if I needed to. The first game I get a two CV game where I get perma spotted and swarmed by planes. In the end I was Auto drop torped in smoke after trying to dodge all the enemy dive bombers and torps, getting my engine killed twice, and not to mention the ever present hail of enemy shells from 6 reds. If one were to look at my stats, they would see that the most planes I have shot down in my Gearing is 7. That was this game. I would like to say I lasted longer than I should have but I still didn't last very long. My question is, should I equip defensive AA knowing that I normally run DDs with AA off and that it is only useful when facing planes or should I equip engine boost so I can improve my positioning while being more vulnerable to airstrikes?
  21. I propose in the very near future that cyclones curtail all aircraft operations. Why? It really is reasonable to request this for a number of reasons. The winds aloft and cloud cover of even the mildest "cyclone" would prove too much for effective air operations. Even if they were able to fly and attack surface ships, you know those ships are going to be really, really tough to see let alone hit as most likely the waters aren't gonna be glass smooth. Any large munitions dropped (torpedoes, bombs) would be affected by the winds and rains. Yes, I know this is an arcade game, not a simulator. So instead of calling it a cyclone, call it a tropical depression or simply a storm. Otherwise, the planes need to be forced back to their ships for recovery until the storm passes. The only other thing about this that irritates is this: a carrier's planes have the upper hand to attack you because you cannot see them until they are practically in your face. IF the weather conditions are that bad, they could not be flying. I think what I'm saying is I'd like it to be a bit more realistic because as it is now, it's a field day for the carriers... who wouldn't launch in the first place.