Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Chain_shot

So what would happen if we all played CV's?

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,475
[PIMPS]
Members
1,723 posts

So what would happen if we all played CV's and nothing else?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,366
[_RNG_]
Supertester
3,176 posts
5,476 battles

Considering the matchmaking restrictions in place, nobody would ever find a battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
759
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
1,226 posts
4,464 battles
Just now, _1204_ said:

Considering the matchmaking restrictions in place, nobody would ever find a battle.

No eventually MM forces match after the time limit, that's how you get derpy all BB or DD games etc or teams with different numbers on them. It would a really long boring game unless everyone focused one CV at a time with there strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KW]
Banned
623 posts

They dont have the CV fleshed out right. It can be fun but the way it is its still kinda boring. You cant think of CV like a ship you need to think ship like a plane WG.... developmentally and exp player speaking.

but as usual WG its..... 

 

Edited by nastydamnanimal
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles

Wouldn't it all just be 2v2s and 3v3s then? You can get through a lot of flak so it might work. Ramming flags a must

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[MORSV]
[MORSV]
Beta Testers
149 posts
7,794 battles
1 hour ago, Chain_shot said:

So what would happen if we all played CV's and nothing else?

Those of us that wouldn't, would be eating planes like spaghetti.... especially with the new AA build thats on test...... CV's are done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[NH]
Members
1,792 posts
1 hour ago, Chain_shot said:

So what would happen if we all played CV's and nothing else?

People would finally understand they are not immune god mode damage farmers people think they are. 

Edited by Dr_Citadel
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,247 posts
9,871 battles

A turkey shoot. The skill set gap between good/excellent players and the mediocre/poor is entirely unforgiving.

I'd pay credits to watch. :cap_popcorn:

[Add a Tora Tora Tora Award for 5+ CVs sunk.]

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
14,000 posts
5,814 battles

Once upon a time under the old CV mechanics, I set up a 12 Hakuryu vs 12 Hakuryu in the training room. 24 Hakuryus all with 8 squadrons each made for a hilarious, super laggy, chaotic dumpster fire of a time. Twas glorious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,180
[WOLF3]
Members
28,139 posts
24,488 battles

AA & Secondary Spec CVs 

Image result for world of warships captain machinegun gif

Graf Zeppelin, Lexington, and the Tier X CVs would have some good Secondaries for such memes.

 

A massive CV battle would require the CVs to focus attacks because 1-on-1, they'd shred planes easily.  And the sprinkling of Fighter consumables across the map will be funny and stupid to watch at the same time.

 

"It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of Airstrikes... but by our captain skills with Secondaries."

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles

Nothing but an endless string of 2 v 2 carrier matches. Or 3 v 3 at tier 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[SOAR]
Members
317 posts
5,141 battles
4 hours ago, awiggin said:

Graf Zepp would actually be usable...with a 2nd build.:Smile_trollface:

Maybe that's what they're intending with her, because she sure isn't a CV anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×