Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Auriana

US Carriers only 1 flight layout??-why

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
183 posts
6,603 battles

Why do Us carriers have only 1 flight layout?..ranger use to have 2-3 but now it has 1

 

Saipan gets 2 but the ranger essesx and midway are about 2 x as large..

Edited by Auriana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
819 posts
3,823 battles

Because variety and choices are the enemy of "balance."  Everyone has to be using the same thing on the same level for it to be "balanced." People also don't like to take personal responsibility for their actions, people hated the strike load outs because it meant they had to take responsibly to defend themselves from enemy aircraft carriers and they hated Air superiority load outs because now they had to take responsibility for sinking the enemy ships. In truth though it didn't help the Japanese could do everything and still have time to eat dinner.

Edited by Magic_Fighting_Tuna
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,826
[SALVO]
Members
17,155 posts
17,812 battles
7 minutes ago, Magic_Fighting_Tuna said:

Because variety and choices are the enemy of "balance."  Everyone has to be using the same thing on the same level for it to be "balanced." People also don't like to take personal responsibility for their actions, people hated the strike load outs because it meant they had to take responsibly to defend themselves from enemy aircraft carriers and they hated Air superiority load outs because now they have to take responsibility for sinking the enemy ships.

Magic, that seems a bit harsh.  The strike loadouts often had no fighters, which put CVs in a position of not being able to defend either themselves or their bombers.  And the anti-strike loadouts were often too weak to generate sufficient damage to earn good XP and credits to help with advancement.

 

Personally, I think that the IJN carriers should also have only a single "balanced" loadout.  I dislike the multiple loadout option because it turns the selection of loadout to be a more important decision on the outcome of a CV vs CV battle than the game play itself.  I call it the loadout lotto.  But if every CV had to work with only a single loadout, there'd be no more loadout lottery.  And it would  become all about how well you played your CV, not which loadout you pick and which one the other guy picked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
183 posts
6,603 battles

but the japanese still get 2 flight controls to choose from...

why not just give the US  a  2-2-1 layout rather then a crappy 1-2-1 layout which means we can only choose 1 of the following defend our ship, fleet or strike..

how is this balanced?..its not balanced at all

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

It was suppose to make USN CVS more viable.

 

 

 

pikohan     504

For the last two weeks, the winrates for the Midway, Indy, Bogue, and Langley are all above 50%, which is better than historical. For the Ranger, Lex, and Essex nothing seems to have changed. They are still all below 50% in roughly the same places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,477 posts
8,148 battles

Simply put - Wargaming didn't want to fix the actual problem, or was oblivious to it.

Since day 1 carriers were added to the game, USN fighters have basically stomped on IJN fighters. It's why some called the AS setup cancerous, and the nerfed to oblivion DB's didn't help. But, instead of addressing the real issues, USN fighter DPS is too high, accuracy of USN HE DB's, and IJN needing a comparable strike loadout or AS depending on tier that matched number of fighter groups for equal ability to contest the skies, they gave us the better mix/strike option we wanted for USN but took away choice, leaving IJN now to rule the skies thanks to strafe lock with 2 groups and reverse the air control issue. It's why in the "6.14 CV changes feedback" thread I kinda tore into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
183 posts
6,603 battles
21 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Magic, that seems a bit harsh.  The strike loadouts often had no fighters, which put CVs in a position of not being able to defend either themselves or their bombers.  And the anti-strike loadouts were often too weak to generate sufficient damage to earn good XP and credits to help with advancement.

 

Personally, I think that the IJN carriers should also have only a single "balanced" loadout.  I dislike the multiple loadout option because it turns the selection of loadout to be a more important decision on the outcome of a CV vs CV battle than the game play itself.  I call it the loadout lotto.  But if every CV had to work with only a single loadout, there'd be no more loadout lottery.  And it would  become all about how well you played your CV, not which loadout you pick and which one the other guy picked.

 

i agree that everyone gets 1 loadout-

a 2-2-1 loadout is probably the best with some fighter rebalancing maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
183 posts
6,603 battles
9 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Simply put - Wargaming didn't want to fix the actual problem, or was oblivious to it.

Since day 1 carriers were added to the game, USN fighters have basically stomped on IJN fighters. It's why some called the AS setup cancerous, and the nerfed to oblivion DB's didn't help. But, instead of addressing the real issues, USN fighter DPS is too high, accuracy of USN HE DB's, and IJN needing a comparable strike loadout or AS depending on tier that matched number of fighter groups for equal ability to contest the skies, they gave us the better mix/strike option we wanted for USN but took away choice, leaving IJN now to rule the skies thanks to strafe lock with 2 groups and reverse the air control issue. It's why in the "6.14 CV changes feedback" thread I kinda tore into them.

i agree they didnt fix anything with this...maybe force people to get the midway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,826
[SALVO]
Members
17,155 posts
17,812 battles
27 minutes ago, Auriana said:

i agree that everyone gets 1 loadout-

a 2-2-1 loadout is probably the best with some fighter rebalancing maybe

I don't know which CV you're referring to with your 221 comment.

I'm currently at tier 7 on both CV lines.  And I wish that the Ranger's loadout was 211 rather than 112.  It seems to me that the extra FTR squadron would have been a lot more valuable than an extra DB squadron.

 

38 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Simply put - Wargaming didn't want to fix the actual problem, or was oblivious to it.

Since day 1 carriers were added to the game, USN fighters have basically stomped on IJN fighters. It's why some called the AS setup cancerous, and the nerfed to oblivion DB's didn't help. But, instead of addressing the real issues, USN fighter DPS is too high, accuracy of USN HE DB's, and IJN needing a comparable strike loadout or AS depending on tier that matched number of fighter groups for equal ability to contest the skies, they gave us the better mix/strike option we wanted for USN but took away choice, leaving IJN now to rule the skies thanks to strafe lock with 2 groups and reverse the air control issue. It's why in the "6.14 CV changes feedback" thread I kinda tore into them.

 

Oh, I think that they do want to fix carriers.  I think that the USN CV tweak was a step in the right direction.  However, i think that they need to go to a single IJN CV loadout as well.  

I really wish that they'd make the number of planes per squadron the same regardless of nation.  To me, that the single worst imbalancing factor, because 2 4-plane fighter Sqdns will always be better than a single 6 plan squadron, or worse when you add in the 4th level skill that adds a plane per squadron, the IJN gains 2 planes (1 per fighter sqdn) whereas the USN only gains 1 plane for its single fighter squadron, meaning that the imbalance is now 7 planes vs 10, rather than 6 vs 8.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,313 posts
21,160 battles

I still don't understand why players can't choose their own loadout.  Seems like it takes a lot of the fun out of the game.  You choose the wrong load out you suffer.  OK.

Move on. Your team suffers too?  Yes.  

Seems to me that WOW think the CV players are too stupid to figure out how to play their ships, which I think is wrong and incorrect for the most part.

The same % of players in any type of ship would have the same problem, but that's no reason to dumb down the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,477 posts
8,148 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't know which CV you're referring to with your 221 comment.

I'm currently at tier 7 on both CV lines.  And I wish that the Ranger's loadout was 211 rather than 112.  It seems to me that the extra FTR squadron would have been a lot more valuable than an extra DB squadron.

 

 

Oh, I think that they do want to fix carriers.  I think that the USN CV tweak was a step in the right direction.  However, i think that they need to go to a single IJN CV loadout as well.  

I really wish that they'd make the number of planes per squadron the same regardless of nation.  To me, that the single worst imbalancing factor, because 2 4-plane fighter Sqdns will always be better than a single 6 plan squadron, or worse when you add in the 4th level skill that adds a plane per squadron, the IJN gains 2 planes (1 per fighter sqdn) whereas the USN only gains 1 plane for its single fighter squadron, meaning that the imbalance is now 7 planes vs 10, rather than 6 vs 8.

 

I have to disagree and "planes per squadron" when done right is a none issue. I don't want one stale option, I want a choice. It's one thing for me to say "I want to play strike" it's another "you can only play this way". And even then they should have done it at the same time, not just screw USN.

And USN fighters can still beat IJN's 1 on 2. Hell, there is a GZ set up that could down 2 USN fighter squadrons. It literally comes down to a numbers game where planes in a squadron is a factor but only one of many. Lower the DPS of USN fighters a bit, they have the same or less chance to shoot down IJN planes. The increased number of planes spreads out the DPS loss caused by losing one so it better maintains an ability to function and still has %chance to down a plane. Overall DPS, and chance to down a plane are the only factors planes per group effects and currently, USN planes average I think 10% higher chance to down an IJN plane, which, drops in it's %chance rapidly due to fewer planes, which is why AS USN was such an issue in terms of ability to control the skies. The only reason IJN now has air superiority is that they have 2 squadrons vs 1 and are locking one in place and strafing the other.

We don't need cookie cutter 6 plane fighter squadrons for all nations. What we need is each nation having an "AS" option and a "Strike option" from say tier 6 ish on where the have whatever fighters per group, with properly balanced DPS per plane, and the AS  setup's have the same number of fighter groups, Lex and Shokaku as an example, 2,x,x and 2,x,x and strike with the same number of groups, but only 1 less group than AS, same example ships, 1,x,x and 1,x,x. And then whatever strike aircraft they use and all so, back to Lex and Shokaku let's say that the AS/Strike setup's are 2,0,2/1,1,2 and 2,2,2/1,3,2. 

 

Number of planes in group - not important. Number of groups of fighters - important. And with having a choice, you know what your getting into, and should adjust your tactics accordingly. Not have these things forced upon you as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,826
[SALVO]
Members
17,155 posts
17,812 battles
18 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

I have to disagree and "planes per squadron" when done right is a none issue. I don't want one stale option, I want a choice. It's one thing for me to say "I want to play strike" it's another "you can only play this way". And even then they should have done it at the same time, not just screw USN.

And USN fighters can still beat IJN's 1 on 2. Hell, there is a GZ set up that could down 2 USN fighter squadrons. It literally comes down to a numbers game where planes in a squadron is a factor but only one of many. Lower the DPS of USN fighters a bit, they have the same or less chance to shoot down IJN planes. The increased number of planes spreads out the DPS loss caused by losing one so it better maintains an ability to function and still has %chance to down a plane. Overall DPS, and chance to down a plane are the only factors planes per group effects and currently, USN planes average I think 10% higher chance to down an IJN plane, which, drops in it's %chance rapidly due to fewer planes, which is why AS USN was such an issue in terms of ability to control the skies. The only reason IJN now has air superiority is that they have 2 squadrons vs 1 and are locking one in place and strafing the other.

We don't need cookie cutter 6 plane fighter squadrons for all nations. What we need is each nation having an "AS" option and a "Strike option" from say tier 6 ish on where the have whatever fighters per group, with properly balanced DPS per plane, and the AS  setup's have the same number of fighter groups, Lex and Shokaku as an example, 2,x,x and 2,x,x and strike with the same number of groups, but only 1 less group than AS, same example ships, 1,x,x and 1,x,x. And then whatever strike aircraft they use and all so, back to Lex and Shokaku let's say that the AS/Strike setup's are 2,0,2/1,1,2 and 2,2,2/1,3,2. 

 

Number of planes in group - not important. Number of groups of fighters - important. And with having a choice, you know what your getting into, and should adjust your tactics accordingly. Not have these things forced upon you as is.

Completely disagree.  The number of planes is the most important issue.  When they're the same, a LOT of other problems start falling by the wayside like dominoes, and you can start worry about balancing things by balancing the individual planes.

And NO, there should NOT be any loadout options.  The Loadout Lottery is total crap that ruins the game for just about everyone else in carrier battles.  The other 11 players shouldn't get hosed just because their CV player got unlucky and ran up against an enemy CV player who lucked out to pick a loadout that hard counters them.  No.  The only "option" that I think seems acceptable is one where you have a stock loadout and an upgraded loadout.  For example, say that a stock Ranger was 111, then it's upgraded loadout might be 112.  This becomes a case where there's no "loadout lottery" because the upgrade really is a straight up improvement on the stock loadout.

There's no other type of ship that regularly gets this sort of "option" in their builds.  About the only one I can think of is the Mogami and IIRC, the devs think that allowing it to have the choice of 6" or 8" guns was a mistake.  Notice that they didn't give the Gneisenau that option with her original 11" guns vs the envisioned 15" gun upgrade.  They just gave the Gneisenau the 15" guns and call it good.  Beyond that, maybe you could call the Shimmy's torp choices an option, but frankly to me, the way they've designed the 3 torp alternatives, the devs seemed to really want you using the 12km ones.  And one other "option" I see is how certain USN DD's have a third AA hull that few people choose because it gives up a main gun for additional AA.

So, no, given that upgrades similar to loadout options  almost never occur on regular non-carrier warships, I don't think they should be allowed for carriers either.  The only loudout "option" might be a straight upgrade that wouldn't really be seen as an "option" but a necessary upgrade to the stock loadout.

 

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,760
Members
18,363 posts
5,241 battles

They said it was to make USN CVs "more versatile", and my first thought was, "how does taking away choices make them more versatile"?

My thinking now is that meant in any particular match, a USN CV would be more versatile, and not forced into a particular role by specialisation. It makes sense, if you ignore the comparison to IJN CVs. (which WG seems to have done)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[KENT]
Members
481 posts
3,224 battles

Do you know why? It's because AS is [edited]cancer.  That's why.  Granted, maybe they shouldn't have completely removed AS (or maybe you could've done something bout the Saipan, WeeGee), but overall I'd say that there is less cancer in the world.  WG is not done tweaking CVs, don't go nuts just because IJN has AS and you don't.  Besides, Skillway is actually decent now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,477 posts
8,148 battles
52 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Completely disagree.  The number of planes is the most important issue.  When they're the same, a LOT of other problems start falling by the wayside like dominoes, and you can start worry about balancing things by balancing the individual planes.

And NO, there should NOT be any loadout options.  The Loadout Lottery is total crap that ruins the game for just about everyone else in carrier battles.  The other 11 players shouldn't get hosed just because their CV player got unlucky and ran up against an enemy CV player who lucked out to pick a loadout that hard counters them.  No.  The only "option" that I think seems acceptable is one where you have a stock loadout and an upgraded loadout.  For example, say that a stock Ranger was 111, then it's upgraded loadout might be 112.  This becomes a case where there's no "loadout lottery" because the upgrade really is a straight up improvement on the stock loadout.

There's no other type of ship that regularly gets this sort of "option" in their builds.  About the only one I can think of is the Mogami and IIRC, the devs think that allowing it to have the choice of 6" or 8" guns was a mistake.  Notice that they didn't give the Gneisenau that option with her original 11" guns vs the envisioned 15" gun upgrade.  They just gave the Gneisenau the 15" guns and call it good.  Beyond that, maybe you could call the Shimmy's torp choices an option, but frankly to me, the way they've designed the 3 torp alternatives, the devs seemed to really want you using the 12km ones.  And one other "option" I see is how certain USN DD's have a third AA hull that few people choose because it gives up a main gun for additional AA.

So, no, given that upgrades similar to loadout options  almost never occur on regular non-carrier warships, I don't think they should be allowed for carriers either.  The only loudout "option" might be a straight upgrade that wouldn't really be seen as an "option" but a necessary upgrade to the stock loadout.

 

 

 

Then were gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. 

If you make it they all have the same number of planes, there is no worry about individual plane balance or changes, there is no option, there is only cookie cutter planes with the same HP,  ammo, DPS, and to keep it fair at that point speed. There is no room to buff or nerf one because then you create the same bull issues we have now. And where's the fun in any of that, wheres the flavour present in other ships? nowhere.

And I have to combine those last 3 into one response. Yes, every other ship actually has options. Different ways to build, though not always taken. Sure, few get choices through modules, but they get theirs through Modernizations, Captain Skills, consumables, and occasionally turret/hull options. CV's don't have any consumables to swap out other than their planes that are technically ammo and a consumable. In that sense our choice between AS and Strike is how some have to choose between say Radar and DF AA or the like. Captain skills, CV captains have 4 mandatory skills I know of that require 8/19 points, and several skills just short of mandatory such as basics of survivability, Fire prevention and others. So we can't really build any difference that way. And that leaves modernization's. Well, let's look at the 6 slots. Everyone with sense chooses air group mod 1 for fighter buffs over secondary weapon HP. Slot 2, you need that fire chance down in case you get attacked by bombers, long range fire from aerial spotting, etc. Slot 3, maybe a few choose FCM to cut down rearm time by 4.5-6 seconds, most likely go for AGM 2 for more fighter HP and ammo because you need those fighters up and fighting. Slot4 you need DCSM to cut down fire times because we take the most damage and can't launch, unless you take a 3 point skill which would be 11/19 mandatory points then. Slot 5 you actually get a real choice, better concealment and harder to hit you a little or detect that DD and it's torps that's been shadowing you for the last 5 minutes a little further out with your ship alone. And Slot 6 FCM 2 is pointless and with how overbuffed AA is and fighters, only real option is AGM3 for bomber HP. 

Any BB can build to secondaries, AA, survival, hybrids, etc. Cruisers have some of the same builds as BB's or other tweaks to them. DD's are the one other class forced generally to 1 build type, though there is some flexibility still in even consumables for some as to how aggressive/ninja like they are. CV's must take certain skills with others anything but mandatory, the only consumable we get is DCP, on some ships DF AA, with it otherwise being planes, and modernization's is again, basically "take these ones, they are required". The only option is flight modules and I am sorry, but if you take the new strike USN vs old AS, and you can't cope with one less fighter because you chose additional attack ability, you need to re-evaluate how you play CV's or playing them altogether. IJN players learned long ago, as did USN strike players, how to deal with fighters that aren't competitive or having no fighters vs two, through tactics and planning, what the class is kinda supposed to be about. Feint attacks, use the teams AA, etc, all the things us long time CV players have done since Alpha, others since the game launched or when they joined. No fighters vs 2, that was a bit of an issue, long as I have 1, or if Essex had it's 3 back, 2, I'm good. I encountered AS Inde in my 1,1,1 Inde and seldom had an issue, had to deal with Hiryu in mixed tier matches where Ranger was strike and didn't have an issue other than 1 fighter vs usually 3 groups was a bit much, but I managed. And I'm not a great CV player, I'm average. I prefer an AS set up as while it lacks some punch I can better cover my team if they are spread out. But as long as I have only one group less of fighters, to gain a little edge in punch, especially if they get balanced to be of equal power yet differently, I'm good to run strike if I want to focus more on sinking ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
819 posts
3,823 battles
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

Magic, that seems a bit harsh.  The strike loadouts often had no fighters, which put CVs in a position of not being able to defend either themselves or their bombers.  And the anti-strike loadouts were often too weak to generate sufficient damage to earn good XP and credits to help with advancement.

 

Personally, I think that the IJN carriers should also have only a single "balanced" loadout.  I dislike the multiple loadout option because it turns the selection of loadout to be a more important decision on the outcome of a CV vs CV battle than the game play itself.  I call it the loadout lotto.  But if every CV had to work with only a single loadout, there'd be no more loadout lottery.  And it would  become all about how well you played your CV, not which loadout you pick and which one the other guy picked.

 

Yeah that was too harsh, I was in the process of lowering myself back to my normal leveled self when I wrote that. Truthfully a carrier can defend itself quite reasonably from other carriers, destroyers and even cruisers with a few upgrades and captain skills. Bomber wise that's more difficult without fighters but it can be done to a degree, if your clever with their flight paths and use Allied AA to your advantage you can usually sneak your way past the enemy fighters but this isn't 100% fool proof either, if you happen to be facing a more ware CV opponent they can really ruin your bombing days an even lock you down. As for the anti strike load outs, I felt the bouges for example was too weak as all you got was a single bomber squadron but in the Lexington's case for example it got two bomber squadrons I thought this was acceptable as I've learned with using dive bombers they could still output enough damage to keep you in the game but then again I'm not entirely sure how American dive bombers behave as my only experiences are using the Japanese bombers.

I do agree with about the Japanese only having one load out as I already had assumed their going to do so in the future after their done fiddling around with the American carriers and the premium carriers. So I haven't really got settled in an comfortable with the Japanese carriers remaining untouched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,196
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,671 battles

In my honest opinion, since CAT, I've always advocated that the CV's should have gone more towards the old Navyfield route and allowed the player slots to select their own loadouts. The originally reason why they didn't do it they stated was for legal reasons due to Nexon pushing for NF2 to roll out around the same time as WoWS but since NF2 was dropped by Nexon and is in a legal blackhole as well as the legal issues of the original NF game removed due to their license having expired in the EU and NA they don't have that issue anymore.

What they honestly should have done is the following.

1. Allowed slots like module upgrades for Carriers to have the player select a load out. Depending on tier give them a limited number of slots. Example 3 slots for tier 4/5, 4 slots for 6, 5 slots for 7, and 6 slots for 8-9 and 7 slots for 10. Have a maximum number of plane type be no more than 1/2 of the set number of slots available. This means tier 4's would have either a 1/1/1, or a 2/1/0 or vice versa, tier 6 would have the ability for any slot for 2 with the other two at 1/1, tier 7 would allow for a 2/2/1 config of any sort, tier 8/9 would allow for a single type to have 3 in one slot, and tier 7 would allow for a very wide mix.

2. Remove manual drops, bring in the auto drop circle for CV's to be closer. Give options for different flight patterns for the different craft to change their effectiveness. Basically, allow formations for DB, TB, Fighters for different combat bonuses. This would mean more skill in using the right formation with a cool down at the right time to make it more skill based and bring the skill ceiling down a bit for the extreme spectrum's. The example to give would be for fighters to have say 3 formations. 1st one makes them faster but reduces their effectiveness vs enemy bombers as well as drastically increasing their turn circle, making them better at intercepting fighters as they would get a bonus to damage to enemy fighters but a lower damage to enemy bombers. 2nd stance makes them slower but drastically increases their ability to turn so making fast small circle turns for engaging enemy bombers by cutting them off. The 3rd stance would be a neutral stance with no bonuses. There would also be formations for bombers to increase their abilities against certain bomb targets as well as allow different torpedo drop patterns or DB patterns for better hits since manual drop would be removed knowing how and when to use these formations would be key.

3. Remove CV's ability to perma spot torpedo's when they are no longer detecting them (this should be for ships as well), another thing would need to be done is to adjust AA values to reflect the removal of manual drops entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
3,891 battles
9 hours ago, Auriana said:

i agree they didnt fix anything with this...maybe force people to get the midway

force people to buy Saipan , is what it was (and is).

Edited by Strachwitz666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,606
[PSP]
Members
6,356 posts
8,977 battles

Perhaps WG just got tired of CV drivers complaining to them about the hate they were getting in chat.  I don't know how many times I saw someone go off onto a tirade in chat because the carrier in the game didn't have the loadout that they specifically approved of. Personally, I liked the choice but I guess it is what it is. At least now the new, un-upgraded carrier isn't hampered by a lesser stock loadout. When a stock 1,1,1 Ranger was facing a 2,2,0 Saipan it might of well have just left the game and started another for all the good it was going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

If WG was looking for a bandaid to hold them over until a full CV rework, what they should have done is given ALL CVs of every nation the same planes and loadouts. That immediately levels the playing field between all CVs and buys them time to work on a more permanent fix. Instead they make the problem slightly better for a couple of CVs, and horribly worse for others while still preserving the overall IJN advantage.

 

I've given up on playing CVs until they do a full rework, which sucks, because it was my favorite type of ship to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×