Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

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
    • Contests and Competitions
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • 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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 20 results

  1. My MS Paint edited screenshot says it all, really. Mass container opening option is being implement, doing this as well would make things even easier.
  2. I think most can agree that destroyers have been the most negatively effected class of this rework, one of the greatest reasons being the spotting caused by carrier aircraft. Although there are less planes in the air than before, and there will be even less once the hype dies down, spotting of destroyers by planes is still a great problem. Due to the weak AA that most destroyers have, there is virtually nothing destroyers can do to counter it. Destroyers are hard enough as is, I would be fine if they were difficult to kill with CVs, it means that the team needs to work together on sinking them more. Here are my proposals to fix the problem, they are not mutually exclusive: Introduce a delay to spotting similiar to the upcoming radar changes. CVs will be forced to brake LOS after attack runs, and if that's all the CV intends to do, they will not have enough time for other friendly ships to even target the spotted destroyer unless the CV dedicates his whole squadron to spotting. Remove RPF on planes, it's simply too effective in hunting down destroyers. Remove the ability for fighters to spot ships. At the moment all it takes is the pressing of a key to drop planes over a destroyer that is continually spotted until they are shot down or they run out. I don't want to pull the realism argument here, but the fighters are only meant to shoot down enemy planes, not provide spotting. It has the same effect of having multiple squadrons as with the old CV gameplay.
  3. with incoming frequent change of meta, boat rental service is a much better option rental based on day basis at cost of dub value/30 days, premium account holders get a 20% disaccount this way you never worry about nerfing a ship anymore
  4. and the CV cannot leave the team base circle
  5. USS_Taylor_Swift

    Buff sector selection for AA

    This is the result of a match I just had with a full AA build Missouri. Both CVs relentlessly attacked me for nearly the entire game. I was able to do absolutely nothing but retreat for the duration of the game. There is absolutely nothing fun about it. With my full AA build, I was able to shoot down a whopping 20 airplanes out of their magical infinite hangers. Who designed the manual AA sector selection system and thought it was a good idea? Once the red planes go through their attack on you, their planes have flown over to the AA weak side of your ship and by the time you switch sectors, they are already attacking and now once again flying to the other side. This whole system is just bad, but we should at least be able to switch sectors immediately or within 2 seconds. I just don't understand how this was played in testing and enough people thought "this is really fun! We did a great job and our players will love this!"
  6. After the first few 0.8.0 games left a horrible impression on me, I decided to bring out an old favorite of mine - Aoba - and see how her anti-aircraft fire fares against the new carriers. In this game, I spent much of the battle pushing alongside a Gneisenau, and for a time, I broke off to hunt a CV that got too close to our battle line. The imminent threat of a CA ganking a CV turned both carriers' squadrons on me, and I found that when used correctly, sector AA when paired with DefAA II and Fighter II really tears through strike aircraft, even for a nation with notoriously poor AA capabilities. It was also during this battle that my biggest sector AA gripe came up: I was forced to use the cumbersome sector UI to enhance and change sectors. Even though I survived to help capture the enemy base, I found the UI clunky and borderline unusable in the heat of battle. My suggestion is this: allow for a keybind to toggle sector AA from port to starboard (and vice versa) like 'P' turns AA on and off. That way, sector switching becomes a lot more fluid and doesn't cover the whole screen, allowing for more dynamic surface ship play. It's difficult to fire guns, drop torpedoes, and manage AA sectors all at the same time, and I think this QoL change would really benefit aggressive play like the match in question. Side note: For those wondering, my build for this game was as follows: Captain (14 points): Direction Center for Fighters, Last Stand, Basic Firing Training, Advanced Firing Training, Manual Fire Control for AA Armament Upgrades: Main Armaments Mod 1, Propulsion Mod 1, Aiming Systems Mod 1, Steering Gears Mod 2 Consumables: Damage Control Party II, Defensive AA Fire II, Fighter II Signal Flags: None
  7. What if they implemented early cloud cover at/near the vicinity of caps and the only ships that could spot DDs are rival dd and radar/hydro ships? During cloud cover, cvs can still spot ships outside the capping areas but even so, ships are still too close to each other with AA cover to attack. Once its 3 to 8 minutes into the match the cloud is gone for planes to spot enemies in and near caps.
  8. Now before i say anything i will state that yes the zao is a very good ship but after the removal of the ability for destroyers and cruisers to be able to stealth fire with ease in japan line. The zao may have recently gotten its updated torps and slightly increased damage but when the initial idea of the ship was being a "Fire starter" with its high fire chance it is out ranked by other cruisers now (Henry IV). It isn't the worst ship to play but in terms of its actual effectiveness. Now looking at most stats (NOT COUNTING PLAYER ABILITY) the ship its self is in simple terms not so great. Other ships of similar tier have been much better off in some form of "strength" whether that be AP damage, torpedo's etc.. The ideal point i'm trying to make is that it would be nice to have the ship either be given a major overhaul or just replace the ship entirely which i am purposing. To where i am going with this as we know WOW wants to be accurate to lore while keeping balance on ships to prevent them from being too "OP" which is all. But that is where the zao kinda falls off from the historically correct part of it. As the zao is based on the 1941 Type A Heavy Cruiser which is also known to be the Design B-65 cruiser that japan had planned back in 1939 and was to be made in 1942. Where the ship carriers 9 Tri-linked cannons at 310MM for its primary guns. In addition its natural stats are in large similarity to that of the Yamato as the ship was defined as a Super Type A cruiser. The ship in easiest terms was a "baby Yamato" so at least from my point of view of historical accuracy i would love to see them redesign the zao to make it more to its correct design with altered stats to not make it a dumbly "OP" ship compared to the other T10 Ships. To assist in help show what i am talking about here is a clipped image from the info page of the B-65 Cruiser.
  9. A comprehensive suggestion for rebalancing my Donut, and fixing her armor model errors. WARNING: THIS IS LONG AND TEXT/IMAGE HEAVY Buckle in boys, this is going to be a long one. So the tier VI premium light battleship (or battlecruiser) Dunkerque has recently garnered a bit of attention in regards to the presumptive reload buff she is receiving according to recent Dev Blog updates. The Buff is as described below: Now, as a long time player of Dunkerque (Donut, Dunkek, etc...) I have to say that the fact that she is finally receiving some attention is most appreciated. To my knowledge, Dunkerque has never seen any direct buffs or nerfs throughout her two and a half year tenure in this game. Naturally, much has changed in the way of meta since August of 2016, which was when she was originally introduced. Overmatch has become prevalent with the introduction of several new premiums and battleship lines. IFHE has become extremely prevalent ( if not necessary ) among destroyers and light cruisers. Newer ships are faster, or more accurate, have more guns, better HP, overmatch, armor, etc… Even the fabled CV rework is about to hit live, combined with news of a change to the flooding mechanics ( flooding being split into two sectors which deal less HP than one current flooding. 30% forward speed decrease, 60% reverse speed decrease ). Simply put, the game has changed a lot just in general. Throughout all of this, Dunkerque has remained largely the same, and it is my opinion that she is among the ships which have suffered the most from powercreep. I consider this to be quite unfortunate. I was for a time, one of the staunchest defenders of Dunkerque at her release, and for quite some time after her. Her speed used to be quite unique, as well as her bow-mounted main battery of extremely high velocity and penetration 330 mm /52 Mle 1932 rifles in two quadruple turrets. This layout resulted in occasional good groupings, and the speed of her shells made it relatively to hit enemy cruisers and battleships from near the maximum edge of her 18.2 km range ( 21.8 with a spotting plane ). Her flexibility and relatively quick reload allowed her to exert influence across a greater than usual area of the map, especially when compared to slower vessels like New Mexico. This helped make up for her relative lack of strength in other areas, and there are many areas in which Dunkerque was deficient, even back in 2016. We’ll get into those in a second. To add a bit of credence to my love for this ship ( and reinforce the fact that I’m not a random baBBie complaining because “Beeg ship no crush small ship!” ), here are my current standings in her. Not the best on the server, but I’ve certainly managed to do quite well. Being top 5 in Dunkerque is something I’m a little proud of. Unfortunately, I have stopped playing her in the past few months. To put it quite simply: she’s simply not fun in her current state, nor up to task for dealing with the current meta. Now, I said earlier that I would go into the various strengths and weaknesses of Dunkerque. Hopefully what I identify here will help my case for some of the buffs I will be proposing later. Pros: -Speed. Despite the amount of time that has passed, Dunkerque is still among the fastest of the battleships at her tier. At 29.5 knots without speedflags, she is tied with Normandie, and 1.5 knots faster than the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. Her advantage over the other premium and non premium battleships ranges from between 3 to 8.5 knots. This speed is valuable at a tier where most others are operating in the 23-25 knot range ( some as low as 21 ), no question about that. -Penetration and Velocity. Dunkerque's relative low caliber of 330 mm is deceiving. Her performance against vertical plate is among the best at her tier, being matched by New Mexico's 14”/50 and surpassed completely only with the introduction of West Virginia and her 16” AP Mark 5 shell. As we can see from the sweep, penetration and velocity are among the factors which do not trouble Dunkerque. She can penetrate the belt of most same tier battleships out to nearly her maximum range. The velocity still lets you snipe cruisers with ease, but in this aspect she suffers from Roma Syndrome: you will see a lot of overpenetrations. -Rate of Fire. Dunkerque has a 28 ( proposed 26 ) second reload. It’s not fantastic, but it’s better than most of the ships in tier VI. Some ships like New Mexico and Arizona truly suffer from some terribly ungodly long reloads, so I'm counting my blessings where I can find them. And… I’m going to be honest here, the list of objective strengths ends there. Her concealment is bad, although not worst in tier ( thanks Fuso ). Her maneuverability is bad, but not worst in tier. Her AA and secondaries are bad, but again, not worst in tier. What is objectively the worst in tier however, is her armor. Here we go into the- Cons: -Armor/Protection. Immediately, Dunkerque falls flat on her face. She is simply coated in 25 mm plating all over her hull. She has no distributed armor scheme, meaning that she is the most vulnerable of all ships at her tier to overmatch and IFHE. Dunkerque fundamentally lacks the ability to act as a good tank, or really a tank at all. Should she come upon the likes of a Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Bayern, Mutsu, or West Virginia ( to say nothing of tier VII/VIII ), she is largely defenseless. Hits by those guns along her hull will always result in penetrations or overpenetrations for guaranteed damage. The same is true when being struck by 4-6” IFHE equipped light cruisers, or 7-8” armed heavy cruisers. Dunkerque's problems with protection don’t end here though. In addition to the poor extremity/hull plating, her belt and bulkheads are quite simply put, the worst in tier. Her belt is 225 mm with a 40 mm sloped deck and a 40-50 mm flat citadel bulkhead. This is incapable of protecting her citadel from battleship caliber shells at most ranges, and makes her particularly vulnerable at closer ranges. The forward citadel bulkhead is a flat 228 mm. Simply put, this cannot stop any shell which overmatches the 25 mm bow, at any range. We have already identified the ships just in tier VI which can and do accomplish this task. In addition to this fact, her turrets are vulnerable. Far from being poorly armored, the problem with Dunkerque's turrets are that they are stacked atop one another, and very wide. By the nature of her playstyle, these turrets take a lot of shells, and one or both are often destroyed. Each lost turret represents a net -50% decrease in firepower. Dunkerque has no special heal or any other advantage to make up for these extreme and pronounced vulnerabilities. My first con section is already three times the length of the entirety of the pros. -Torpedo Defense. To put it frankly, Dunkerque's torpedo damage reduction value is an insult. Coming in at a little over 7 meters in depth, the little battleship had what was universally considered to be one of the best torpedo defense systems ever put on a ship. The Richelieu had a narrower version of this design, and ingame receives a respectable ( albeit still rather low ) 35%. Dunkerque gets [edited] 25%. Why. With her armament and armor peculiarities heavily influencing her playstyle, she is incredibly vulnerable to torpedo attack. This low of a value is simply inexcusable from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and hurts her massively. -Main Battery/Offensive Power. On paper, Dunkerque's guns seem quite good. I’ve already detailed the great strength of her belt penetration and the advantages afforded by her high velocity. These strengths are more than ruined by their weaknesses. First and foremost, Dunkerque has 1.7 sigma. This in itself isn’t a death knell, but then the rest of the picture comes in. She has only eight guns. She can’t overmatch same tier battleship hulls. Her reload, although short, does not make up for the loss of four barrels when compared to the infinitely stronger Fuso, which shares the same rate of fire. Then comes her horrific vertical dispersion, and then the fact that she overpenetrates anything that’s not a battleship belt or unfortunately angled cruiser ( Roma Syndrome ). To say that Dunkerque's main battery performance is frustrating, would be a massive understatement. No part of it compliments the other enough to overcome the weaknesses inherent to the caliber and dispersion characteristics at this tier. Her 130 mm /45 secondary battery is also poor, although not quite terrible. The shells have a high individual fire chance and good damage, however they fall short on penetration with 21 mm base. The mounts are also positioned awkwardly, making them hard to use reliably. Although the quadruple turrets are well armored, the twins mounted forward are not. It is not worth speccing into these by any means. -Anti-Aircraft. Dunkerque's anti-aircraft firepower has been poor since release. Although the 3 x 4 and 2 x 2 130 mm mountings have decent range, they fall flat with their low damage numbers ( no information as of yet on how they perform with the CV rework ), throwing up a measly 54 DPS at 5.0 km. Mid range is essentially non-existent, five twin 37 mm guns yield 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Short range is very short, with 8 x 4 13.2 mm mountings yielding a combined 40 DPS at 1.4 km. Simply put, Dunkerque can add being incapable of defending herself effectively from aircraft to her long list of downsides, even with a full AA spec. -Detection. Although by no means the worst in tier, 16.4 with camo ( 14.1 with CE + camo ) is not great for a ship of her particular playstyle and vulnerability. She gets spotted early, and targeted by everyone for easy damage, with no real recourse to prevent such a thing from occurring. I could go even more in depth, but I think this identified most of the key issues which plague Dunkerque, and why I personally believe that she requires more help than just a 2 second reload buff. Recommended Improvements (not necessarily all at once, just general suggestions): -add 27 mm plating amidships over the side and weather deck. Already being plagued with the worst horizontal armor protection in her tier bracket, Dunkerque absolutely requires an improvement to her tanking capability. Increasing the protection amidships versus 381 mm guns essentially achieves the same results as the identical change made to some tier VIII cruisers. It allows her to mitigate some of the otherwise unavoidable damage from overmatch. Leaving the bow and stern sections 25 mm allows for damage to still be dealt, but requires a bit more thinking than simply “point and click for 10,000 damage”. -improve torpedo damage reduction to 35%. By her nature, Dunkerque spends a large part of any given battle with her bow towards the enemy, moving back and forth with the battle. This is largely a necessity forced by her poor armor, in addition to her armament layout precluding effective stern-kiting. This makes her extremely vulnerable to flanking attacks by destroyers, from which she has no real escape. Increasing torpedo damage reduction not only more correctly represents the strength of the real system, but also helps decrease her extreme vulnerability to all forms of damage. -increase sigma value from 1.7 to 1.9. To help offset her low barrel count and lack of overmatch ( combined with a propensity for overpenetrations and her huge vertical dispersion ), better hitting ability would help compliment her high velocity gunnery, allowing her to more reliably punish enemies who make mistakes, especially battleships. Sigma values are largely overrated, but they still do have an impact. -improve anti-air defense with the addition of the originally designed light AA complement of five 37 mm ACAD automatic mounts. Because of Dunkerque's more static reverse-advance playstyle, she makes an extremely enticing target to aircraft. Often she is simply unable to maneuver in time to avoid torpedoes, or attempt to evade dive bombers. This problem will only worsen with the carrier rework. This buff also has a degree of historical relevance. Dunkerque was originally supposed to be equipped not with the twin semi-automatic 37 mm Mle 1933 mountings, but with five of the twin automatic 37 mm Mle 1936 ACAD mountings. This little guy. Image taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. These mounts are already present ingame, four of them being mounted upon the heavy cruisers Algerie, Charles Martel, and the battleship Gascogne. The mounting has a base range of 3.5 km, and generates 12 DPS. Dunkerque was to be equipped with five such mountings, yielding 60 DPS ingame. This is quite literally a five fold increase over the current 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Given that the close and long range values are still quite low in damage or range, this won’t make her a floating AA castle. What it will do however, is provide her with some increase measure of self-defense. An AA spec might be viable with such a buff. -decrease base detection to 15 kilometers. This is self explanatory. As a light battleship meant to be flexing back and forth with the cruisers, a large base detection range makes her extremely vulnerable to being spotted early, and farmed for damage. A decrease of ~1 kilometer should help this slightly, and give her just a little bit more tactical flexibility. And thus ends my section on balance. Eleven god-damn pages of stuff that I shouldn’t have had to write, but did anyways out of love for Dunkerque. I want to see her be viable, fun, and rewarding of skill. WG’s proposed buff of -2s off the reload does not solve any of the fundamental issues present on her, so these are my suggestions. Please recall that I do not advocate for all of them being applied simultaneously, but I do feel that most of them could be without pushing the ship into being overpowered. Simply put: no matter what buffs I recommend, she will always be vulnerable to overmatch and IFHE spam. She will always have lackluster secondaries, and poor maneuverability. Her turrets will always be at risk of simply being destroyed, and she will always lack the ability to overmatch same tier battleships. Now, onto the more interesting part. ARMOR MODEL INACCURACIES, WOOHOO Ironically enough, while WG has seen fit to make Dunkerque suffering to play, they have actually overmodeled some sections of armor thickness. The errors are as follows: Armor deck is too thick. WG has modeled it as a uniform surface of 130 mm thickness. According to all known sources, Dunkerque has a main armor deck ( Pont Principal ) with two varying thicknesses over the machinery and magazines: 115 mm and 125 mm respectively. Machinery: Magazines: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how it looks ingame: Here’s how it should look: Fore and Aft Transverse Bulkheads are too thick. Paradoxically, WG decided to use the armor thicknesses from Dunkerque's uparmored sister ship, Strasbourg, when modeling her forward and aft transverse armored bulkheads. Ingame these are modeled as 228 mm and 198 mm respectively. Sources indicate that the fore bulkhead should instead be 210 mm, the aft bulkhead 180 mm. Fore: Aft: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how they look ingame: Ingame Fore: Ingame Aft: Here’s how they should look: Actual Fore: Actual Aft: Yes, I am in fact arguing for historical armor nerfs in the very same post where I call for buffs. Deal with it. Aaaaaaaaaaaand that’s all folks. As if it wasn’t long enough already. Stares at 21 page length in Word. I appreciate those of you who read through this and take the time to comment. Please for the love of god, DON’T QUOTE THE ENTIRE THING. I’ll be hovering over the comments area like an overly enthusiastic grade school soccer coach does his team, so feel free to ask any questions, discuss, whatever. Hopefully someone important will at least read this. Edit: No, I don't know why the Forum decided to center literally the entire thing. I can't undo it either. Edit 2: Whatever, it sort of fixed itself.
  10. I mounted it to try out now only to find I don't have the gold to demount them
  11. I would really like to have the Escape key (Esc) perform a "back" (or "descent tree node") function in the Port UI until you're back at the "root" port display. Or for that matter, *any* key perform that action - and if I want to re-map it to my Escape key, add that function to the Key Binds section. For example, I'm looking at my American Cruisers collection (Profile tab) and I press Esc, I get taken back to the Port display (tab). If I'm looking at our Naval Base, I press Esc, and I'm taken back to my Port. I see in other menus that "Esc" is associated with a "Back To Port" link (eg News window) - just continue to make that consistent.
  12. Elo_J_Fudpucker

    Signal Flag Menu - Suggestion

    I am sure I am not alone when I express frustration with the Signal Menu Interface... here is my suggestion... *(edit - to be clear the white boxes are check boxes, pick up to the max allowed and click mount all)
  13. To help improve player information in the Arsenal, I came up with this idea. Can we see how many signal flags we have in our inventory? So we, the WoWS players, can make a decision in spending the coal, instead of going back to our ships and writing down what we have, then going back into the Arsenal to spend the coal. It will save the WoWS player management time in doing so. I made a couple of mock up examples. Example #1 Example #2 Would this be helpful to you guys for WoWS?
  14. With all the talk about Royal Navy carriers (and they ARE important), I would love to see the French get a little love too. The Commandant Teste and the Bearn were both commissioned aircraft carriers. The Joffre and Painleve were not completed but the Joffre was laid down and there is plenty of design info available. it would be cool to have a Joffre to go with the rest of the French Marine National ships. Interesting design, strong armament (powerful AA!) and a decent aircraft capacity and decent speed (33.5 knots). Wishful thinking perhaps...
  15. Not really sure where to put this on the game forums, so I put it here. The TL:DR version is that I think a great idea for a low tier premium would be a premium V-25. It is my favorite little T2 and is a great deal of fun -- as all premium ships should be. Also it does not hurt that 73 of the things were built: plenty to choose from. P.S. Anyone who cries "Seal Clubber" needs to take a look at the soon-to-be-released USS Charleston. Nothing screams seal clubber louder than a premium St. Louis.
  16. because why not? I don't see any harm to the game doing so? well, on a serious note, I see few benefits if WG allowed us to make in-tree ships premium with golden eagles. First off, it gives you reason to play fully researched ships other than for fun. while playing for fun is good and all, playing them with bonuses that come with premium ship would be even more great. second, you get to have premium ship that exactly suit your preference. sure, there's many ships to choose from premium shop too, but you often have to rely on other's comments and reviews to know how ship exactly plays out. and you never know until you really try out. (I really wish WG add some sort of a trial period btw) but in tree ships are accessible by just grinding for it. so you get to know before you invest real money on it. last but not least, it gives WG a way to monetize already existing content /winkwink
  17. First, thank you for finally recognizing that the CV lines were broken. It took courage to walk back public statements that the class was fine in order to alter it fundamentally. I watched the stream of the proposed concept for new CVs and it has promise, but it looks very rough and there remains a lot of work to do (as I'm sure you already know). As a CV player, I will take each point raised as a reason for changing the class and look at how the new gameplay might stack up. #1) High difficulty The good news is that the player won't have >4 things to manage at once. I expect an improvement in the difficulty curve, but the problem won't be perfectly solved with merely a switch to a first person style. The high difficulty was not a function of the RTS style...merely switching to first person shooter style won't solve the problem. I expect that you will be developing a tutorial on how to control and deliver ordinance and maintain control of the ship at the same time. This game play will still be different than any other class and will still require a lot of understanding for new players to become competitive. #2) Low popularity and low numbers at high tier I assume WG has much better information on the behavior of the players than I do. I won't comment on this specifically. #3-a) Possibility of scouting interfering with destroyers Again, this isn't a function of the RTS style. The stream announcement discussed having multiple carriers in game. The number of squadrons being used for scouting will be the same in a 2CV game, and greater in a 3CV game than before...and these scouts will have WASD control without distracted captains...and with no threat of enemy fighters to disrupt the scouting. The rework doesn't solve this problem at all. If anything, it might make it worse. The focus on DoT instead of alpha strike means that players in the early game may focus on scouting to remove destroyers and wait for friendly HE spam to whittle down the AA mounts facing their eventual strikes. In my opinion, this issue is going to need some additional balancing beyond what was mentioned in the stream. At minimum you should be considering air detection ranges of ships. Depending on how deep you want to make the game play, you might consider having air spotting range depend on the altitude of the spotting aircraft. Or you could have air spotting only provide information on the mini-map and not the players fire-control view. #3-b) Possibility of dealing critical damage at any time This was a key problem with CV play. You have chosen to go to a DoT method. However, even with only a 3 TB spread, a capital ship or cruiser can be easily sunk...depending on the damage delivered by the warhead. I expect you will merely change the warhead values and chances of flood and fire. But it really doesn't address the core issue...which is that in the RTS, a CV could nearly instantly remove any ship from the game...while in the first person shooter, a CV can most likely remove any ship from the game over a 1 minute period. Neither of these outcomes is practically different. There is, however, a more nuanced solution already present within the game. Battleships have a similar ability to nuke an enemy vessel. Their ordinance is extremely powerful, but is limited by it's dispersion...which is controlled by RNG. Why not do the same for CV drops? CVs now drop in a perfect pattern...even with defensive fire up their drop pattern is set. A good player knows how to exploit the spreads and ovals to get the best outcome nearly every time. IMO, the solution is to create variability (governed by RNG and the AA intensity) in the flight path and therefore drop location and direction of the individual aircraft. Real life torpedo bombers don't drop 'spreads' of torpedoes. They all try to drop on a bearing and the RNG determines how far the individual torpedo headings spread. It is easy to just re-use the DD torpedo launcher system with the estimated aim indicator and the perfect edge of spread indicator in the new rework. But DDs need that because they have to take excessive risks to get close enough to get the majority of their torpedoes to hit. CVs do NOT need that level of knowledge. Most TB squadron commanders will press in far enough to get the kill...and if you give them perfect information, they will be able to achieve it easier than you want. An RNG system allows you to better balance the high potential alpha of an air attack with the need to make the attack survivable. The only indicators a TB squadron commander needs is the estimated heading of the enemy warship...and the heading he is currently going to make his torpedo run on if he activated the drop now. The actual drop should be random based on the heading selected and the type of plane / captain skill / damage taken / intensity of incoming AA fire. This also allows me to get to a minor annoyance with the squadron game play...the fact that only a quarter of your squadron actually attacks at any one time. This is silly and looks tacked on to reduce the impact of the squadron. Most captains are only going to make two attacks with their squadron before the AA damage is too much. The constant appearance of 'wasting' attacks will grate on players, and create a skill gap where knowledgeable players will club the rookies who don't know the value of holding back. Far better, in my opinion, to have most or all of the squadron attack. I do not, however, mean that all planes should attack at the same time. The planes should still attack flight by flight, and they should follow the aim point and heading of the first flight to attack. You could create a projected elipse with RNG on where the subsequent DB flights tip over to aim. The impact of lead for TB would be complicated by the sequential rather than parallel method of attack type. Hitting maneuvering targets would be harder, stationary targets easier, etc. The main effect though would be that the high damage potential would be spread over a potentially large area. A CV could get lucky, like a BB does...but most of the time he will not.There are lots of different ideas you could layer into this. I think it is worth considering. #4) AA defense I like the general concept of the AA possibilities in the stream. Given visual cues and allowing some dodging of AA will make the squadron commanders job more interesting. The impact of AA switching sides seems to ignore the fact that dive bombers will usually be launched from ahead or behind a ship. Will there be an option to focus AA firepower to the bow or stern? A more simplified approach might be to have port, starboard, and balanced AA direction? #5) Manual vs Automatic attacks causing high skill bar This is another area where the switch is a good choice. I assume you are aware that the new mode will essentially be using manual attacks all the time. The difficulty level will be higher for new players (see my notes in section #1) and the potential damage you can inflict will be higher pending the warhead and flood / fire chances (see my notes in section #3-b). #6) Current game play is on the map view and is alien to players of the other classes. True, and the rework should address this. However, you have stated that the player can only drive their CV ship using way points. This means that a portion of the new mode will still have to be played using the top down map. In my opinion, having the CV ship be on the map is extremely problematic. It has no ready means of defense, it has no use other than as a spawn for the squadron, and the main point of the new mode will be to control the squadron. You would be better off allowing players to advance SQUADRON lines in the tech trees than ship lines. The simplest solution to the CV ship problem is simply to remove it. It isn't necessary to have a ship on the map. Just send the planes away, and give the player a timer for a new squadron to arrive. IF we have to have a CV on the map, there are several problems that will need to be solved. How does the CV protect itself from DD attack? With only one squadron in the air, there will be a serious risk of sniping of a CV by destroyers (particularly at low tier). One of the best ability of a CV in such a situation is the ram. However, the way point mode of controlling the CV does not allow a ship to ram. Another vulnerability of CVs is being sniped by the enemy aircraft squadrons. This could be countered by giving the CVs a combat air patrol. Establish a flight of three fighters that orbit the carrier much as a catapult fighter orbits a cruiser. The CV always has at least a three plane flight orbiting it. If the CV uses a consumable 'Scramble CAP', a further two flights of three planes each are added to the orbiting defense. These fighters would be AI controlled and would aggro to incoming planes much as the current catapult fighter does. #7) Current AA skill sets devalued because of lack of player population Whether the rework fixes this is dependent on how many players end up taking on the new mode and how dangerous CV squadrons become in the new meta. Hard to say at this point. Other ideas: I think the lack of fighter protection is going to be an issue, particularly at higher tiers. One of the primary functions of a CV was to protect the team from enemy air attack. The current proposed rework will not allow this to happen. The ships will be dependent solely on AA to defend them against attacks. Fixing this problem is quite difficult. The strafe mechanic was far to powerful in the RTS version to keep. You could have removed strafe as a damaging move and simply allowed squadrons to exit fighter lock for the loss of a fighter, however, that is water under the bridge now with the abandonment of the RTS mode. A possible idea would be to allow strike squadrons at higher tiers an integral cap (perhaps a flight of three or six planes) that flies above the package? This would give strikes a possibility of fighting off a defending force...and also allow players to use their squadrons as 'blocking' forces in the early battles for scouting position. It could be modified by captain skills and national flavor squadron types. IMO, the idea of having a consumable for planes to arrive at a squadron location for a limited time is too 'gamey' to make practical sense. Either the planes have CAP or they don't. They would never have CAP for 30 seconds and then nothing. If you have read this far, thank you for reading. Please post below what you think and improvements to the ideas above. Thank you!
  18. WOWs Techs and Code Writers: In WWII should a ship encounter ships close up and in smoke or storm they would random fire to see if they would get a hit as a way to locate (especially if they knew the enemy was close and conditions were bad).. Since we can blind fire in storms and smoke with main guns, i would highly encourage you guys to allow the player to manually pick a coordinate for the secondaries to begin firing until you disengage. I understand the current programming is set to fie on the middle part of a ship's bow; however, to make this more realistic and give BBs and Cruisers a little help when being gunned from smoke. Most BBs and cruisers do not have radar so at least this is one option for the CO to use those secondaries. Perhaps performing some tests with manual secondary control to allow the player to choose the target versus the game is worth a try? Love the game thx..
  19. Leopard_IX

    Game Suggestion

    I would like to suggest to WG to let their players to have the ability to gift other players with in-game items like doubloons, credits and camos. I have heard so many people suggest this as it will make the game better. The game might also become more popular since rewards can be given from player to player, and that would enable more game-play in order to spend the rewards that are given. Just a suggestion, but I think it will make the game better for everyone.
  20. One of the reasons many people hate HE spam/RN battleships, etc. is due to how it ruins their AA and there is no way to counter it at all. If you get hit by just 1 conquerer salvo at the start of a match your entire AA bubble can be crippled for the rest of the game, making you way too vulnerable to carriers. To me it makes no sense that massive battleship turrets can easily be repaired in less that a minute, but small AA mounts are lost permanently. It doesn’t make sense, gameplay wise or historically speaking. Therefore I suggest that AA and secondary mounts should be repairable. The timer should be long, such as several minutes, to prevent immunity to HE spam, but it should also be there so that one unlucky salvo doesn’t cripple your full AA spec ship for the rest of the game.