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

AA in CV Rework and You.

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,059 posts
2,528 battles

From https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/bulletin-080/

Ships defend against incoming aircraft using their AA guns, comprising long-, medium-, and short-range mounts.

Short-range AA guns, consisting mainly of machine guns, deal damage continuously to one randomly selected aircraft in a squadron. Medium- and short- (they probably meant Long and Medium, not short) range AA guns, in addition to continuous damage to a single aircraft, also fire shells that explode in the air in a squadron's path. If an aircraft moves into an explosion zone, it receives damage. In this case, only aircraft in the explosion zone will receive damage, not the entire squadron. You can reduce damage from long- and medium-range AA defenses by actively maneuvering and varying your speed. However, this is difficult for squadrons with a large number of aircraft. Therefore, when attacking a ship with powerful AA defenses, be prepared that some of your aircraft are likely to be destroyed on their approach to the target.


They introduced the AA rework in the CV Rework Beta.  Others can chimes in with their experience.

Generally my experience is that being in a group MATTER.

You will not wipe out an entire squadron and prevent two or three passes alone. Not even an Antiaircraft cruiser can withstand the full attention of a determined carrier alone (Worcester vs Midway).

All AA guns have their range standardized in the Beta tests. 127mm, regardless of nationality, was 5.2km. The 152mm Dual Purpose was around 6km or so.

There are no module or skill increasing the AA range. Just the damage, the efficiency of AA sector reinforcing, and number of flak bursts (explosion zone).

Edited by Hurlbut
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[AAA]
Members
1,118 posts
12,402 battles

That makes CVs sound OP. 

In randoms getting ships to coordinate anything is impossible. 

CVs will also be prime candidates for an alpha strike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,306
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,855 posts
1 hour ago, Hurlbut said:

From https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/bulletin-080/

Ships defend against incoming aircraft using their AA guns, comprising long-, medium-, and short-range mounts.

Short-range AA guns, consisting mainly of machine guns, deal damage continuously to one randomly selected aircraft in a squadron. Medium- and short- (they probably meant Long and Medium, not short) range AA guns, in addition to continuous damage to a single aircraft, also fire shells that explode in the air in a squadron's path. If an aircraft moves into an explosion zone, it receives damage. In this case, only aircraft in the explosion zone will receive damage, not the entire squadron. You can reduce damage from long- and medium-range AA defenses by actively maneuvering and varying your speed. However, this is difficult for squadrons with a large number of aircraft. Therefore, when attacking a ship with powerful AA defenses, be prepared that some of your aircraft are likely to be destroyed on their approach to the target.


They introduced the AA rework in the CV Rework Beta.  Others can chimes in with their experience.

Generally my experience is that being in a group MATTER.

You will not wipe out an entire squadron and prevent two or three passes alone. Not even an Antiaircraft cruiser can withstand the full attention of a determined carrier alone (Worcester vs Midway).

All AA guns have their range standardized in the Beta tests. 127mm, regardless of nationality, was 5.2km. The 152mm Dual Purpose was around 6km or so.

There are no module or skill increasing the AA range. Just the damage, the efficiency of AA sector reinforcing, and number of flak bursts (explosion zone).

 

AFT better drop to a 3-point skill if it doesn't extend AA range.

BFT better drop to a 2-point skill if it doesn't improve medium and long range AA guns, only short-range.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,832
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,081 posts
5,740 battles

In last test, I found that except at Tier 10 AA was pretty strong.. especially against un-upgraded planes.   From T4-T8,  There were many times where I would lose an entire squadron prior to landing an attack even attacking a single Cruiser or BB.  Now at Tier 10 I will say at times I felt I could ignore AA from a single ship...  except maybe a few of the AA cruisers... even then I could usually get off an attack.  T10 CVs felt a bit OP to me.  If they remain in that state I agree at T10 you better keep close to other AA for support.   Now for the record most of that experience was against bots with no info on how they were set-up and if they were  spec'd for AA at all.   My experience even at T10 against player controlled AA cruisers was it was a pretty considerable time effort..As it took more effort due to AA diferrences and ability to evade my attacks, keeping me in their AA bubble longer.   I generally had to wear down their AA with rockets to create an opportunity.   Still you had to weigh the risk reward as it was usually better to attack something a little less protected to be able to reward yourself with consistent damage for time spent.         

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,719
[USCC2]
Members
5,813 posts

I'm just going to wait to see what happens. I hope whatever is introduced, isn't so bad that it breaks the game. If not then I can live with it. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[NUWES]
Members
2,924 posts
9,684 battles
11 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

That makes CVs sound OP. 

In randoms getting ships to coordinate anything is impossible. 

CVs will also be prime candidates for an alpha strike

We really have to wait and see what happens on live. In my experience in the test they weren't OP at all and certainly nothing close to how they are now. Planes could make it through the AA although it depended a lot on ship and tier. Langley's planes went down if you sneezed hard at them. Midway's not so much so.

In theory the strike planes could make repeated strikes on the same target but I found that if there was any serious AA ship nearby the planes would get ripped apart if you lingered in the bubble. Turning around for a quick second strike guaranteed you stayed in the bubble. T10 planes had a much easier time surviving of course, but I never got a chance to enable a heavy AA build under the new rules. The only way to see how well the AA is balanced is to put it live and see how well CVs are actually doing. 

CV sniping was a thing in the test. What helped is plane strikes didn't do nearly as much damage under the new rules rather than the old ones. To defend the carrier I would drop the fighter consumable nearby (although I really wish something would show the fighter's patrol area or there was some way to select a target and tell the fighters to fly CAP over it.) Also fast DDs like Khabarovsk were so quick they could dash around an open flank the rear lines and go after the CVs. CVs were having a lot of trouble hitting them because of the ridiculous leads you needed. If that holds true in live, Le Terrible may now have a purpose since she is even faster.  

All the uncertainty is why the have to put the rework live now. IT is the only way to see how the actual live population plays under the new rules. I'm very much looking forward to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[GWG]
Members
6,720 posts
12,788 battles

Will this new format allow CVs to be in divisions (Multi CV)? Will it allow more than 2 CVs in a battle? I'm not being an A-Hull.... This is a serious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,550
[PVE]
Members
19,836 posts
12,005 battles
2 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

Will this new format allow CVs to be in divisions (Multi CV)? Will it allow more than 2 CVs in a battle? I'm not being an A-Hull.... This is a serious question.

That is a possibility that WG has discussed, but as far as I know, nothing definite has been decided. We may get up to 3 CVs a game depending on how the rework pans out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
20 posts
5,179 battles
46 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

Will this new format allow CVs to be in divisions (Multi CV)? Will it allow more than 2 CVs in a battle? I'm not being an A-Hull.... This is a serious question.

 

If I remember correctly, I think they stated that only 1 CV per Division still.  As for the multiple cv's per side, I think I  remember them saying that they will look at the numbers once live and adjust what the cap is per side.  But then again I am not getting any younger and my brain lost many cells over the x-mas holiday ( thanks alcohol ) :-)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,864 battles
2 hours ago, wstugamd said:

In randoms getting ships to coordinate anything is impossible.

It would be interesting to see, IF CV's are OP, and IF word gets out the only want to survive is in groups, will it promote more communication and coordination by sheer necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[MHG]
[MHG]
Members
883 posts
3,864 battles
45 minutes ago, Happy668 said:

just leave AA as it is, in the heat of battle don't want to worry about AA micro management

Second that.  No AA Micromanagement.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[SBS]
Members
5,231 posts
1 hour ago, AVR_Project said:

Will this new format allow CVs to be in divisions (Multi CV)? Will it allow more than 2 CVs in a battle? I'm not being an A-Hull.... This is a serious question.

I don't what the latest word is on this but when the rework was announced WG said they like to remove all CV specific MM restrictions.  That would mean up to five CVs per team and no restrictions for CVs in divisions.  Maybe WG has said something different in the meantime?? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,528 battles
1 hour ago, Happy668 said:

just leave AA as it is, in the heat of battle don't want to worry about AA micro management

 

16 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

Second that.  No AA Micromanagement.

There is no micromanagement. You either shift the AA sector to boost one side AA firepower at expense of the other or leave it alone. Aside from Defensive Fire consumable, that's the ONLY active part you have to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
386 posts
2,773 battles
27 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

It would be interesting to see, IF CV's are OP, and IF word gets out the only want to survive is in groups, will it promote more communication and coordination by sheer necessity.

Or more lemming trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[SEOP]
Members
1,555 posts
8,233 battles
2 hours ago, wstugamd said:

That makes CVs sound OP. 

In randoms getting ships to coordinate anything is impossible. 

CVs will also be prime candidates for an alpha strike

Yeah --  never been a fan of the CV game in WoWs.  But they've been mostly tolerable in that I mostly only see them now at mid-tiers.  Much more rarely in high tiers.  the mid-tier CV players are usually still relatively new to the game and not particularity well skilled in CV tactics.  So they don't typically dominate random matches.  

I'm hoping the impending rework release doesn't severally reduce my current level of fun I have with the game.  But I'm pretty skeptical that WG will make CV game play both appealing to those folks that just want to play the surface battles vs. those that want to play airplanes .    

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,350
[OO7]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles
50 minutes ago, SJ_Sailer said:

It would be interesting to see, IF CV's are OP, and IF word gets out the only want to survive is in groups, will it promote more communication and coordination by sheer necessity.

Welcome to 2016.

It was horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles

Overall I'm not that impressed with the shift in AA as a core part of the rework. The rework itself could do 4 good things in my opinion -

  1. End pervasive perma-spotting of ships and torpedoes
  2. Reduce individual CV impact so that the 22 other ships actually matter when you get the 75% DM-Mino-Midway exploiter div vs. the 32% 'what is strafe?' Midway...
  3. Actually make CV-ship gameplay involve counters and well, real interaction in which maybe you can do more than 'ctrl-click a squad, turn in, enjoy 14s rudder shift vs. 180kt planes'
  4. Look at the binary manner in which AA builds and tiers work, Lexington being invulnerable to Normandie AA is as bad as Lexington being functionally unable to strike a Des Moines AA build

Point 1 is... a mixed bag, fewer squadrons but tiny turn around times, able to repeatedly strike a destroyer with the same squadron, but... only 1 destroyer. Better than 6 squadrons permaspotting your whole team, I guess...?

Point 2 is... we'll see really, hopefully that's fairly successful with the reduction in spotting, and some compression of the skill gap between what a good and bad player can and can't do.

Point 3 looks like a miserable failure. The AA 'sectors' idea is garbage, and has never seemed practical or enjoyable. The way planes fly over to strike from one side, then strike again with the next flight from the other side ruins its value, as do attacks which want to come in from ahead or astern. Compared to at least making a choice 'do I prioritize the TB's on the left, or right, or guess my close range will work and target the DB's??' with ctrl+click it's seemingly no improvement. There is still very little to do about an air attack. Lots of the plus points bought up in the rework seem to give planes better opportunities than ships -

  • Planes can use cover to close on ships, reducing effective AA time, and while a ship might be able to 'sneak up on' planes using cover, overall that mechanic only favors the attacker
  • IJN TB's are even going to be able to stealth-torp?!
  • You can just fly around the 'bursts' of the heavy AA which the ship doesn't control in any meaningful way

The fact that AA is still seemingly balanced around '1 ship is not enough, so bunch up' is atrocious. It produces gameplay I would best describe as 'clustering and boring' or, as it is more commonly and disparagingly known 'lemming training like a bunch of dumb noobs off to A cap no support here GG losers'. Slicing down AA firing range by gutting AFT means you have to cluster even tighter, outer-auras look like they struggle and the heart of the DPS is in the 40mm on most high-tier ships. Now you can't protect your allies as well (reducing teamwork) because you don't have the range, and sailing in close enough formation to cover at only 6km is far harder than 7.2km. Sailing in formation given the turning radiuses, speed of ships etc. is already a pain in the neck.

The area AA protects at 6km range is 113 sq km. The area AA protects at 7.2km range is 163 sq km. A huge increase, or now, decrease.

The 'new' MFCAA further exacerbates this, pretty much gutting that skill and the ability to stack decent DPS at long range, to cover yourself or allies. BFT is also gutted.

The fact that carriers will have infinite plane reserves while AA guns die in droves at the merest whiff of HE also guts counterplay, why rely on your AA sector, or AA of teammates, or build AA when your AA is gone and all of the buffs don't apply to the most robust DP mountings you have left?!

Point 4 seems to have barely been addressed, though I guess getting rid of T7 carriers means that those poor DFAA-less T5's get a bit of a reprieve

 

Overall, carriers were a pain in the neck, the single factor most likely to seriously reduce my enjoyment in any given battle, but at least they were rare. Making carriers obnoxious in a new way, while also making them more popular is the worst case scenario for me.

I don't understand WG moving in this direction of low interaction -

  • Open Water Stealth Fire is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • 20km 'torpedo soup' is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • Excessive smoke shooting is obnoxious with limited counterplay, radar and detection bloom in smoke are added, it gets mostly removed
  • Carriers are obnoxious with limited counterplay, WG... try and increase the numbers while not hitting the core problems...
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,028
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,781 posts
25,410 battles

EU notes to the 8.0 patch: you cannot div with another CV

 

What changes will be implemented with matchmaker? We plan to expand the maximum number of aircraft carriers in combat due to the possible increase in the popularity of this class. However, we can't say for sure until we see how new carriers affect the balance overall. We expect that the average number of aircraft carriers in the team will remain in the area of one or two, but with a more stable presence in the battles.

If we talk about matchmaking in terms of divisions, the restriction will remain the same — one aircraft carrier per division.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/cv-rework-changes/

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,263 battles

Well now... my first PT battle... 9 v 9 with 4 CVs per side... not sure what the point of that was... Certainly the CV's got a lot of fun practice, but the rest of the ships in the battle were just fodder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[WOLF1]
Members
2,863 posts
58 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

 

There is no micromanagement. You either shift the AA sector to boost one side AA firepower at expense of the other or leave it alone. Aside from Defensive Fire consumable, that's the ONLY active part you have to do.

but that IS micromanagement, as long as there's such ability, that will be expected and game will be balanced against it, so in the end it requires players to keep switching sides, what fun is that? just make your head spin and feel dizzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[SEOP]
Members
1,555 posts
8,233 battles
26 minutes ago, mofton said:

Overall I'm not that impressed with the shift in AA as a core part of the rework. The rework itself could do 4 good things in my opinion -

  1. End pervasive perma-spotting of ships and torpedoes
  2. Reduce individual CV impact so that the 22 other ships actually matter when you get the 75% DM-Mino-Midway exploiter div vs. the 32% 'what is strafe?' Midway...
  3. Actually make CV-ship gameplay involve counters and well, real interaction in which maybe you can do more than 'ctrl-click a squad, turn in, enjoy 14s rudder shift vs. 180kt planes'
  4. Look at the binary manner in which AA builds and tiers work, Lexington being invulnerable to Normandie AA is as bad as Lexington being functionally unable to strike a Des Moines AA build

Point 1 is... a mixed bag, fewer squadrons but tiny turn around times, able to repeatedly strike a destroyer with the same squadron, but... only 1 destroyer. Better than 6 squadrons permaspotting your whole team, I guess...?

Point 2 is... we'll see really, hopefully that's fairly successful with the reduction in spotting, and some compression of the skill gap between what a good and bad player can and can't do.

Point 3 looks like a miserable failure. The AA 'sectors' idea is garbage, and has never seemed practical or enjoyable. The way planes fly over to strike from one side, then strike again with the next flight from the other side ruins its value, as do attacks which want to come in from ahead or astern. Compared to at least making a choice 'do I prioritize the TB's on the left, or right, or guess my close range will work and target the DB's??' with ctrl+click it's seemingly no improvement. There is still very little to do about an air attack. Lots of the plus points bought up in the rework seem to give planes better opportunities than ships -

  • Planes can use cover to close on ships, reducing effective AA time, and while a ship might be able to 'sneak up on' planes using cover, overall that mechanic only favors the attacker
  • IJN TB's are even going to be able to stealth-torp?!
  • You can just fly around the 'bursts' of the heavy AA which the ship doesn't control in any meaningful way

The fact that AA is still seemingly balanced around '1 ship is not enough, so bunch up' is atrocious. It produces gameplay I would best describe as 'clustering and boring' or, as it is more commonly and disparagingly known 'lemming training like a bunch of dumb noobs off to A cap no support here GG losers'. Slicing down AA firing range by gutting AFT means you have to cluster even tighter, outer-auras look like they struggle and the heart of the DPS is in the 40mm on most high-tier ships. Now you can't protect your allies as well (reducing teamwork) because you don't have the range, and sailing in close enough formation to cover at only 6km is far harder than 7.2km. Sailing in formation given the turning radiuses, speed of ships etc. is already a pain in the neck.

The area AA protects at 6km range is 113 sq km. The area AA protects at 7.2km range is 163 sq km. A huge increase, or now, decrease.

The 'new' MFCAA further exacerbates this, pretty much gutting that skill and the ability to stack decent DPS at long range, to cover yourself or allies. BFT is also gutted.

The fact that carriers will have infinite plane reserves while AA guns die in droves at the merest whiff of HE also guts counterplay, why rely on your AA sector, or AA of teammates, or build AA when your AA is gone and all of the buffs don't apply to the most robust DP mountings you have left?!

Point 4 seems to have barely been addressed, though I guess getting rid of T7 carriers means that those poor DFAA-less T5's get a bit of a reprieve

 

Overall, carriers were a pain in the neck, the single factor most likely to seriously reduce my enjoyment in any given battle, but at least they were rare. Making carriers obnoxious in a new way, while also making them more popular is the worst case scenario for me.

I don't understand WG moving in this direction of low interaction -

  • Open Water Stealth Fire is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • 20km 'torpedo soup' is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • Excessive smoke shooting is obnoxious with limited counterplay, radar and detection bloom in smoke are added, it gets mostly removed
  • Carriers are obnoxious with limited counterplay, WG... try and increase the numbers while not hitting the core problems...

good points.  got my fingers crossed that the CV rework doesn't end up being SPGs in WoT.  Loved and cherished by a few very vocal players -- despised by many.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,028
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,781 posts
25,410 battles
36 minutes ago, mofton said:

Overall I'm not that impressed with the shift in AA as a core part of the rework. The rework itself could do 4 good things in my opinion -

  1. End pervasive perma-spotting of ships and torpedoes
  2. Reduce individual CV impact so that the 22 other ships actually matter when you get the 75% DM-Mino-Midway exploiter div vs. the 32% 'what is strafe?' Midway...
  3. Actually make CV-ship gameplay involve counters and well, real interaction in which maybe you can do more than 'ctrl-click a squad, turn in, enjoy 14s rudder shift vs. 180kt planes'
  4. Look at the binary manner in which AA builds and tiers work, Lexington being invulnerable to Normandie AA is as bad as Lexington being functionally unable to strike a Des Moines AA build

Point 1 is... a mixed bag, fewer squadrons but tiny turn around times, able to repeatedly strike a destroyer with the same squadron, but... only 1 destroyer. Better than 6 squadrons permaspotting your whole team, I guess...?

Point 2 is... we'll see really, hopefully that's fairly successful with the reduction in spotting, and some compression of the skill gap between what a good and bad player can and can't do.

Point 3 looks like a miserable failure. The AA 'sectors' idea is garbage, and has never seemed practical or enjoyable. The way planes fly over to strike from one side, then strike again with the next flight from the other side ruins its value, as do attacks which want to come in from ahead or astern. Compared to at least making a choice 'do I prioritize the TB's on the left, or right, or guess my close range will work and target the DB's??' with ctrl+click it's seemingly no improvement. There is still very little to do about an air attack. Lots of the plus points bought up in the rework seem to give planes better opportunities than ships -

  • Planes can use cover to close on ships, reducing effective AA time, and while a ship might be able to 'sneak up on' planes using cover, overall that mechanic only favors the attacker
  • IJN TB's are even going to be able to stealth-torp?!
  • You can just fly around the 'bursts' of the heavy AA which the ship doesn't control in any meaningful way

The fact that AA is still seemingly balanced around '1 ship is not enough, so bunch up' is atrocious. It produces gameplay I would best describe as 'clustering and boring' or, as it is more commonly and disparagingly known 'lemming training like a bunch of dumb noobs off to A cap no support here GG losers'. Slicing down AA firing range by gutting AFT means you have to cluster even tighter, outer-auras look like they struggle and the heart of the DPS is in the 40mm on most high-tier ships. Now you can't protect your allies as well (reducing teamwork) because you don't have the range, and sailing in close enough formation to cover at only 6km is far harder than 7.2km. Sailing in formation given the turning radiuses, speed of ships etc. is already a pain in the neck.

The area AA protects at 6km range is 113 sq km. The area AA protects at 7.2km range is 163 sq km. A huge increase, or now, decrease.

The 'new' MFCAA further exacerbates this, pretty much gutting that skill and the ability to stack decent DPS at long range, to cover yourself or allies. BFT is also gutted.

The fact that carriers will have infinite plane reserves while AA guns die in droves at the merest whiff of HE also guts counterplay, why rely on your AA sector, or AA of teammates, or build AA when your AA is gone and all of the buffs don't apply to the most robust DP mountings you have left?!

Point 4 seems to have barely been addressed, though I guess getting rid of T7 carriers means that those poor DFAA-less T5's get a bit of a reprieve

 

Overall, carriers were a pain in the neck, the single factor most likely to seriously reduce my enjoyment in any given battle, but at least they were rare. Making carriers obnoxious in a new way, while also making them more popular is the worst case scenario for me.

I don't understand WG moving in this direction of low interaction -

  • Open Water Stealth Fire is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • 20km 'torpedo soup' is obnoxious with limited counterplay, it gets removed
  • Excessive smoke shooting is obnoxious with limited counterplay, radar and detection bloom in smoke are added, it gets mostly removed
  • Carriers are obnoxious with limited counterplay, WG... try and increase the numbers while not hitting the core problems...

Yep, this.

While I own all techtree CV plus the Kaga, Enterprise and Saipan WG should do one thing: remove them all. Every counterplay build is waste of points since non stop HE spam removes most AA fast.

I think the same players that wrote: GZ is bad, I cannot one shot a BB and got their way are the ones that say that the coming CV rework is good.

Still: they sit at the spawn and get killed when a DD or CV spot them. Having endless waves of planes leads to: I don't have to care, waste them and start the next wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[-BMV-]
Members
495 posts
18,002 battles
4 hours ago, Hurlbut said:

Generally my experience is that being in a group MATTER.

If this is true, Does that mean that ships that specialize in flanking positioning like Dunkerque, Richelieu or Kronshtadt will see a reduction on their DPM potential and be easy preys now? When i play any of this ships i try to find a flanking position meaning I'm usually a little isolated from the rest of the team.

Does this mean that Cruisers that relies on Island cover and are usually alone will die faster now?

Does this mean Lemming trains will be the norm now? What about DD play? Are they all going to play like Russian DDs now? sticking with the fleet for fear of been singled out by CVs?

1 hour ago, mofton said:

Snip (or my post would be too long)

I agree on all points. Points 3 and 4 are especially critical. You can't rework an entire class of ships attack package without properly reworking the other ships ONLY defense weaponry. If carriers now have unlimited Planes then AA should be indestructible.

When the CV rework was first announce i was exited. I never played CVs outside of Coop, but the rework gave me hopes to try Random. Why not, if they simplified the thing i would try it out, i hate micromanagement, can't do it at all. Then i saw Notser and Ichase vids, heard of unlimited plane supplies and that excitement began to die out. Now, im worried. It won't be the end of the game, god no, the sky won't fall either but, its the direction WG is taking that worries me. A lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×