Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MaxL_1023

Tier 3 ships need AA

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles

Simple - ALL tier 3 ships (and any tier 4s which fit the description) need to have at least a short-range AA bubble. I don't care if it is historical or not - any ship which can see CVs in its matchmaking spread needs to be able to defend itself, even if only to the degree where it can prevent a fighter from hovering over it. 

Ships like the Dreadnought are literally just food for any CV which wants to drop it, especially with the recent buffs to their torpedo planes (dropping two at a time) and the lack of long-range auras which prevent effective team support. 

 

Thoughts?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,932
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
3,634 posts
16,867 battles

Nah, just remove CVs. Easy.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

No ship should be unarmed against ships it can be sent into battle against in this game.

(See also, the impending mistake of cruisers and battleships getting zero ASW capacity when "submarines" are introduced.)

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
Just now, Harathan said:

This has been talking about repeatedly. Recently, in fact. The hard numbers show that T4 CVs are, on average, doing just a bit less damage than their T4 BB counterparts.

So yeah, there's not a lot of AA at T3. There's also not a lot of CV damage at T3. People just notice it more. Hull shot out by a T4 BB? Torped by a T4 DD? No-one bats an eyelid. Torped a few times by a T4 CV? Forum posts all round.

Because they can actually fire back at the surface ships they face in battle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles
1 minute ago, Harathan said:

This has been talking about repeatedly. Recently, in fact. The hard numbers show that T4 CVs are, on average, doing just a bit less damage than their T4 BB counterparts.

So yeah, there's not a lot of AA at T3. There's also not a lot of CV damage at T3. People just notice it more. Hull shot out by a T4 BB? No-one bats an eyelid. Torped a few times by a T4 CV? Forum posts all round.

The issue is that there is counterplay to opposing surface ships, while CV planes can just drop you over and over, with the new torpedo bombers being basically impossible to evade for anything larger than a CL equivalent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
Just now, Harathan said:

Submarines punish YOLO behaviour, same as CVs do. 

Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, even if it's true.  (As in, it's "true" if you define "YOLO" to be anything more aggressive or proactive that the "stick in reverse or hide beyond something" meta of Randoms.)

The issue at hand is ships that are unable to return fire against an opposing type of ship, such as low-tier ships without AA being stuck in battles with CVs, or any non-DD that will be stuck in battles with the "submarines in name only" that WG insists on infecting the game with.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts

And whats the AA cruisers like Friant and Katori? Chopped liver to you?

There is AA in tier 3... people just refuse to play the ships that have it. They just wanna farm seals in their T3 premiums with a 19pt captain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
Just now, ElectroVeeDub said:

And whats the AA cruisers like Friant and Katori? Chopped liver to you?

There is AA in tier 3... people just refuse to play the ships that have it. They just wanna farm seals in their T3 premiums with a 19pt captain...

Because there's no problem in WOWS that doesn't actually come down to something you can take juvenile pot-shots at other people for.  :Smile_smile:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[Y0L0W]
Members
689 posts
21,951 battles

Definitely isn’t historically accurate that ships can do zero damage to planes. There would have at least been a machine gun or something on deck to deal damage, even is that damage was minimal.

Pretty sure most ships would have had some kind of small arms even  if it was just for use against surface targets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
3 minutes ago, Harathan said:

You can fire back at CVs. They're not off-map.

The CV post-rebork is just a moving airfield, it's the aircraft that are controlled by the enemy player and the aircraft executing the attacks -- and a ship without AA cannot return fire against the aircraft.   This is ESPECIALLY true at lower tiers where speeds are lower and ranges are shorter, making any interaction with the enemy CV itself a late-game mop-up. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts
7 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Because there's no problem in WOWS that doesn't actually come down to something you can take juvenile pot-shots at other people for.  :Smile_smile:

 

Well hey... the whole "there's no AA in T3/T4" argument is kinda getting old. It's been dis-proven multiple times by WoWs veterans. The responsibility lies upon the player to utilize teamwork and spec a captain with MFAA to get AA coverage. It's like that at all tiers... T3 is no different.

Contrary to popular belief, new players boost to T5 in one weekend. They do not stick around at T3 or T4 for very long and are more commonly found in T5/T6. Those low tiers are full of seal-clubbers getting farmed and cannibalized by other seal clubbers. Then they cry on the forums because their Arkansas Beta with a 19pt Montana captain in it isn't clubbing like it used to. The CV keeps farming THEM and Karma strikes...

GENUINE new players don't even know these forums exist, let alone whine in them about T3 AA.

Edited by ElectroVeeDub
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,790
[SALVO]
[SALVO]
Members
4,644 posts
22,287 battles
39 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Thoughts?

 T3 should never have to face any CV's just more bad game designs brought to you by the producers of bad game designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles
3 minutes ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Well hey... the whole "there's no AA in T3/T4" argument is kinda getting old. It's been dis-proven multiple times by WoWs veterans. The responsibility lies upon the player to utilize teamwork and spec a captain with MFAA to get AA coverage. It's like that at all tiers... T3 is no different.

Contrary to popular belief, new players boost to T5 in one weekend. They do not stick around at T3 or T4 for very long and are more commonly found in T5/T6. Those low tiers are full of seal-clubbers getting farmed and cannibalized by other seal clubbers. Then they cry on the forums because their Arkansas Beta with a 19pt Montana captain in it isn't clubbing like it used to. The CV keeps farming THEM and Karma strikes...

GENUINE new players don't even know these forums exist, let alone whine in them about T3 AA.

I was literally divisioning with a player grinding through tier 3 and 4 last night, and when the tech tree ships have no AA it is a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts
4 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

I was literally divisioning with a player grinding through tier 3 and 4 last night, and when the tech tree ships have no AA it is a problem. 

But that's my point... some tech tree ships do have AA...That's what the Friant excels at is AA. Of course you gotta train the captain up and use MFAA, but there are cruisers that chew up planes...

And I believe you can get the Katori for coal... free. I'm not sure anymore as I won it years ago in a mission upon it's release.

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,698 battles
10 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Because they can actually fire back at the surface ships they face in battle.

Sometimes anyway. The original 3 T3 BBs are pretty much at the mercy of T4 CAs, having neither the range nor speed to hit back. Even the newer ones get the same treatment from some T4 cruisers.

But yeah, no reason they can't slap some MGs or small QF guns on T3 ships with no AA. If the real ships of that era had the same concerns about planes that they do in-game, that's likely exactly what would have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,698 battles
39 minutes ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

And whats the AA cruisers like Friant and Katori? Chopped liver to you?

I'll match those with the naked Bogatyr and Kolberg.

Quote

There is AA in tier 3... people just refuse to play the ships that have it. They just wanna farm seals in their T3 premiums with a 19pt captain...

If you want to go up the KM CA or BB lines, or IJN BBs, or VMF CAs, you have no chioce but to "refuse to play the ships that have it".

One of the ships you mentioned as an "AA cruiser" is one of those T3 premiums people use 19pt captains to farm seals....

And really, some of the worst seal farmers are the experienced players driving T4 CVs.

I don't see the harm in throwing a few MGs on a few ships that have nothing, just so everybody gets to throw sparklies at planes. I mean, most of the ships have token AA, why not give that to the several that have none?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,698 battles
5 minutes ago, Harathan said:

A handful of .303s and a couple of 3-pounders aren't going to dissuade T4 CVs from attacking a T3 BB. The equation just goes from "I'm not going to lose a plane" to "I may possibly lose one plane". If that's all that's being asked for, genuinely, then sure slap them on there. But I don't think it would stop threads like this one. Some people just want to be all but immune to air strikes.

You're right of course, but I do think that many would be happy with even just the appearance of doing something, and shooting down a plane once in awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts
20 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I'll match those with the naked Bogatyr and Kolberg.

If you want to go up the KM CA or BB lines, or IJN BBs, or VMF CAs, you have no chioce but to "refuse to play the ships that have it".

One of the ships you mentioned as an "AA cruiser" is one of those T3 premiums people use 19pt captains to farm seals....

And really, some of the worst seal farmers are the experienced players driving T4 CVs.

I don't see the harm in throwing a few MGs on a few ships that have nothing, just so everybody gets to throw sparklies at planes. I mean, most of the ships have token AA, why not give that to the several that have none?

Sure... some of the lines have little AA cruisers to choose from. But that's historically accurate given the year these ships were built... isn't it now? Sooo... people scream that they want historical accuracy in WoWs... but don't want historical accuracy when it works against them? Isn't that convenient...

People do have the ability to defend themselves. They choose to not utilize the tools given to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,987 battles
2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Thoughts?

No they do not! Deal with it just like we who have been here since the start did. The pre rework tier 4 CV were much more of a threat than even 3 of the neutered garbage tier 4 CVs are now! If you want AA stay near a ship that has AA, like the CV(s)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles
9 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

No they do not! Deal with it just like we who have been here since the start did. The pre rework tier 4 CV were much more of a threat than even 3 of the neutered garbage tier 4 CVs are now! If you want AA stay near a ship that has AA, like the CV(s)!

I have been around for quite a while, including pre-rework. Tier 3 ships ALWAYS needed to be able to do better versus CVs, its just that before the rework CVs were rare enough that most people didn't run into them that much, and the auto-drops for torpedo bombers were also much easier to dodge than the current manual drops. 

You really want tier 3s to have to hide in the back next to a CV to not get AA dropped? There MIGHT be one tier 4 per team with enough of a mid-range aura to discourage the tier 4 CV, if that. 

Tier 3 ships should have enough AA that a CV which tries make ALL of his available drops will lose a plane, maybe two if the tier 3 uses good AA management. Tier 4s would take out 2-3 planes in the same situations, and tier 5s should be able to stop the second drop if they use proper AA management. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,698 battles
49 minutes ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Sure... some of the lines have little AA cruisers to choose from. But that's historically accurate given the year these ships were built... isn't it now?

Yes it is, given the year these ships were built. Of course, the airplane as an offensive weapon didn't exist then. As aircraft became capable of carrying ordnance, AA weapons were retrofitted.

For example, the Oleg, (Bogatyr class) during WW1, had new mounts fitted for some of its 75 and 47mm guns, specifically for AA use. 

Kolberg carried 4 52mm AA guns from 1916 on.

Nassau swapped 2 of her 8.8cm anti-torpedo boat guns for Flak 18s in 1916.

Historically accurate.

Quote

 

Sooo... people scream that they want historical accuracy in WoWs... but don't want historical accuracy when it works against them? Isn't that convenient...

That's just it though. Historically accurate doesn't just reflect the ship as commissioned, it reflects changes made over the lifetime of the ship to deal with new threats.

It's actually not historically accurate to leave the ships as built, when IRL, they received upgrades.

You can't have it both ways for historical accuracy. Either the ships stay as built, and see no aircraft, or they see aircraft, and get the token defenses that were added to deal with them.

Quote

People do have the ability to defend themselves. They choose to not utilize the tools given to them.

That's just it though, some ships are not given the tools they are supposed to have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that T3 ships should be turned into AA cruisers, but here we have a case of historical inaccuracy causing certain ships to be singled out. And it's not the newbies doing this, I'm sure they barely have a clue which ships have AA, and which don't.

No, these are the very same low-tier seal farmers that you mentioned earlier, in T4 CVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts
53 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Yes it is, given the year these ships were built. Of course, the airplane as an offensive weapon didn't exist then. As aircraft became capable of carrying ordnance, AA weapons were retrofitted.

For example, the Oleg, (Bogatyr class) during WW1, had new mounts fitted for some of its 75 and 47mm guns, specifically for AA use. 

Kolberg carried 4 52mm AA guns from 1916 on.

Nassau swapped 2 of her 8.8cm anti-torpedo boat guns for Flak 18s in 1916.

Historically accurate.

That's just it though. Historically accurate doesn't just reflect the ship as commissioned, it reflects changes made over the lifetime of the ship to deal with new threats.

It's actually not historically accurate to leave the ships as built, when IRL, they received upgrades.

You can't have it both ways for historical accuracy. Either the ships stay as built, and see no aircraft, or they see aircraft, and get the token defenses that were added to deal with them.

That's just it though, some ships are not given the tools they are supposed to have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that T3 ships should be turned into AA cruisers, but here we have a case of historical inaccuracy causing certain ships to be singled out. And it's not the newbies doing this, I'm sure they barely have a clue which ships have AA, and which don't.

No, these are the very same low-tier seal farmers that you mentioned earlier, in T4 CVs

1) The airplane was invented in 1903. It was adapted for military use shortly afterwards. Ship launched aircraft was used in WW1, and the British were the first to successfully attack a ship using torpedo bombers in 1915. The fist plane to be launched by a ship was in 1910... so T3 is period correct, and so are the CV's. Apparently... rudimentary descendants to carriers date back to the late 1800's. They launched balloons.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier

2) It doesn't matter what year it is. AA was never actually effective at completely eliminating attacks from aircraft. WoWs is actually inaccurate with it's Godlike AA that melts squadrons in mere seconds. Any WW2 veteran would testify that a good portion of aircraft survived an encounter with any ship class. The highest recorded speed of aircraft was accomplished by the Luftwaffe. The fastest aircraft to see any combat in WWII was the Messerschmitt Me 163, which set an airspeed record of 702 mph (1129kph)  in 1944.  Regardless of their AA, it's very difficult to hit anything going anything close to those speeds. That's why Battleships were obsolete by 1939. Here's a list of the American ships hit by a Kamikaze. It's dozens of ships, and not one could shoot the plane down to save their souls. That doesn't even include attacks from pilots that were not Japanese or suicidal.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_damaged_by_kamikaze_attack

3) T3 ships are from... pre WW1 until the 1920's approx? Many ships didnt even have AA. And if they did? It was small calibre machine guns, that were basically unable to hit aircraft. Aircraft weren't even regarded as a threat at that time and it was inconceivable they could sink capital ships. Until they actually did... the worlds navies were slow to adapt to this new threat. Speed, maneuverability, and stealth trumps a lumbering giant tank of a BB. Even today's navies gravitate towards aircraft and small frigates/DD's...

4) So yeah... T3's getting pWned by aircraft and they have little counter or AA? Historikally akkurate.

5) Remember that  a small squadron of antiquated Fairey Swordfish bi-planes made of wood and canvas crippled the Bismark leading to it's sinking. The Bismark had some of the most advanced AA systems in WW2, and it mattered not.  Aircraft are the most powerful things on the high seas. Not Battleships.

6) You can have 1000 AA guns on a ship. It doesn't matter if you can't hit the target. Don't confuse cosmetic numbers regarding AA batteries with reality... CV's were the final word in naval warfare. And still are to a degree...

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
718
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,785 posts
11,434 battles
3 hours ago, Harathan said:

This has been talking about repeatedly. Recently, in fact. The hard numbers show that T4 CVs are, on average, doing just a bit less damage than their T4 BB counterparts.

So yeah, there's not a lot of AA at T3. There's also not a lot of CV damage at T3. People just notice it more. Hull shot out by a T4 BB? No-one bats an eyelid. Torped a few times by a T4 CV? Forum posts all round.

Yeah, but players need to feel like they have a chance shooting against a BB.  They can choose to avoid some situations.  A CV can hunt a ship down and get close to drop ordinance without actually putting their ship in harms way.

 

3 hours ago, Harathan said:

You can fire back at CVs. They're not off-map.

And while they're dropping over and over on you, they're still doing no more damage to you (less, in fact) than a T4 BB would do.

In a one on one situation at T3, most T3 ships would be dead before they ever got to see the CV to even start to do damage.  The CV would know where they were going and have enough speed to avoid the area.  Meanwhile, the CV would be continually dropping ordinance without any restrictions at all.

 

1 hour ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Sure... some of the lines have little AA cruisers to choose from. But that's historically accurate given the year these ships were built... isn't it now? Sooo... people scream that they want historical accuracy in WoWs... but don't want historical accuracy when it works against them? Isn't that convenient...

People do have the ability to defend themselves. They choose to not utilize the tools given to them.

So, the only recourse is to play the few ships that do have AA?  What if you want to grind the lines that don't have it?  Give up on that line? 

Historical accuracy can't be used in this game for balance reasons.  WG, just give the T3 ships, and some T4 ships, some token AA to at least kill something if they hang around too long.

Edited by Murcc
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,969 posts
7 minutes ago, Murcc said:

 

In a one on one situation at T3, most T3 ships would be dead before they ever got to see the CV to even start to do damage.  The CV would know where they were going and have enough speed to avoid the area.  Meanwhile, the CV would be continually dropping ordinance without any restrictions at all.

 

So, the only recourse is to play the few ships that do have AA?  What if you want to grind the lines that don't have it?  Give up on that line? 

Historical accuracy can't be used in this game for balance reasons.  WG, just give the T3 ships, and some T4 ships, some token AA to at least kill something if they hang around too long.

Dodging works...

I reset the British CV line trying to grind for some more Research Bureau points. I was literally playing the Hermes not 10 mins ago. A Bogatyr armored cruiser was able to literally dodge my torp bomber attacks. He had no AA either...

Many ships are hit by CV's simply due to poor maneuvering...

That's why I encourage players to play CV's. It made me a better DD main. Now I know exactly how to defeat CV's. I used to get my behind kicked by CV's too... until I learned how to play CV's. I never touched a CV until approx May 2019.

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,987 battles
2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

You really want tier 3s to have to hide in the back next to a CV to not get AA dropped?

Yes indeed and while you are at it tell the CV players to man up, use their engine and advance on the enemy.

 

2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

here MIGHT be one tier 4 per team with enough of a mid-range aura to discourage the tier 4 CV, if that. 

Use them and include the above! 

Also with over 7000 battles you should be way passed tier 3 and 4 and gripping about tier 6 and 8 CVs!

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×