Mouse makes a post every week about how crappy AA is in World of Warships: Week Five

LittleWhiteMouse · April 22, 2022

I've been double-challenged.

Not only was I initially challenged to post discussions about the sorry state of AA power in World of Warships, these threads have a habit of getting locked for being non-constructive. So let's address that with the following points.

This series is not meant to be inflammatory.
These suggestions are serious.
The goal is not to disparage or punish CVs or people who enjoy playing them.
The goal is to improve the interaction between surface ships and aircraft by giving surface ship players more agency when under air attack.

The present AA system is designed as an obstacle for CVs to overcome. If a CV player mismanages their air groups, they risk running out of individual plane types. It is not designed to protect surface ships. The skill floor to overcome the dangers of AA is very low while the ability to reduce damage to any degree compromises the efficiency of surface ship's positioning and battle influence. There is no active defence surface ship players can undertake to guarantee safety for themselves or allies. In summary: AA mechanics in World of Warships suck. They've been designed not to protect surface ships, but to act as an obstacle for aircraft carriers to mitigate. Because of this, surface ships don't interact with aircraft -- they are simply victimized by them. This is not fun. This is poorly designed. I would like to see it changed.

Every week, I'm going to try and suggest a way for Wargaming to change things.
Previous Entries: Week One // Week Two // Week Three // Week Four

Week #5's Suggestion: Uniform Performance Per AA Gun-Type

This is a quality of life request this week to make sustained AA damage more intuitive for both CV and surface ship players.

One of the casualties of the CV rework was an easy-to-understand AA defence rating per ship. It used to be that a twin 127mm/38 mount had the same range and AA damage regardless of the ship you put it on. It didn't matter if it was found on Yueyang, a tier X destroyer, Atlanta a tier VII cruiser or North Carolina, a tier VIII battleship. A twin 127mm/38 mount always had the same range and did the same amount of damage no matter what. To this end, it was possible to theorycraft what future ships would have. This made certain proposed ships exciting prospects, especially for late-war historical vessels with significant AA refits. West Virginia '44 specifically was anticipated for her excellent potential AA values.

That changed with the 0.8.0 CV rework. Nothing is consistent now. Not only is the value per gun not consistent, range, flak bursts and rate of fire are all different depending upon the ship, type and tier a given vessel is placed at.

Now, the argument could be made that these differing values by tier are a matter of balance -- and it might make sense if AA was particularly formidable. But given the current lacklustre system where AA isn't a significant obstacle to all but the most novice of CV players (and only at higher tiers), I don't feel this holds much weight.

Allow me to demonstrate how skewed this system is using everyone's favourite quad mount, the 1x4 40mm Bofors.

Quad 40mm Bofors

The 40mm Bofors nest was one of the most fearsome AA defences for surface ships in WW2. It used to have a fearsome reputation in World of Warships before the rework. It's usually found on large capital ships but it does appear on some smaller vessels as well. Here's every single entry that I could find in World of Warships presently sorted by DPS from lowest to highest.

I did not include clones. This is on a per-mount basis.

18.90 DPS - 7.20 damage per tick at 4.0km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Ohio (tier X American Battleship Premium)
19.03 DPS - 7.25 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Montana (tier X American Battleship)
19.07 DPS - 7.26 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Iowa (tier IX American Battleship)
19.13 DPS - 7.29 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Vermont (tier X American Battleship)
19.16 DPS - 7.30 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Missouri (tier IX American Battleship Premium)
19.36 DPS - 7.38 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Minnesota (tier IX American Battleship)
19.36 DPS - 7.38 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Georgia (tier IX American Battleship Premium)
19.43 DPS - 7.40 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - North Carolina (tier VIII American Battleship)
19.47 DPS - 7.42 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2.7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Alabama (tier VIII American Battleship Premium)
19.47 DPS - 7.42 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2.7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Constellation (tier VIII American Battleship Premium)
19.50 DPS - 7.43 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - California (tier VII American Battleship Premium)
19.60 DPS - 7.47 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Massachusetts (tier VIII American Battleship Premium)
19.69 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Kearsarge (tier IX American Battleship Premium)
19.69 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Duke of York (tier VII British Battleship Premium)
19.91 DPS - 7.58 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Kansas (tier VIII American Battleship)
20.06 DPS - 7.64 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Richelieu (tier VIII French Battleship)
21.00 DPS - 8.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Texas (tier V American Battleship)
23.63 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Sejong A-Hull (tier IX Pan Asian Cruiser)
23.63 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Puerto Rico (tier X American Cruiser Premium)
24.08 DPS - 7.64 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Alaska (tier IX American Cruiser Premium)
24.15 DPS - 7.67 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Seattle (tier IX American Cruiser)
24.41 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Tulsa (tier IX American Cruiser Premium)
24.41 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Carnot (tier IX French Cruiser Premium)
24.41 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Baltimore (tier VIII American Cruiser Premium)
25.20 DPS - 8.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Albermarle (tier VIII British Cruiser)
25.67 DPS - 7.33 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Franklin D. Roosevelt (tier X American Carrier Premium)
26.25 DPS - 8.33 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - New Orleans (tier VII American Cruiser)
26.78 DPS - 8.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Pensacola (tier VI American Cruiser)
26.83 DPS - 7.67 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Lexington A-Hull (tier VIII American Carrier)
27.31 DPS - 8.67 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Indianapolis (tier VII American Cruiser Premium)
28.35 DPS - 9.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - La Galissonnière (Tier VI French Cruiser)
28.58 DPS - 8.17 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Ranger (tier VI American Carrier)
29.93 DPS - 9.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Leander (tier VI British Cruiser)
35.00 DPS - 10.0 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Hsienyang (tier VIII Pan Asian Destroyer)

As if this inconsistency wasn't bad enough, it gets worse when you look at combined values between quad 40mm Bofors when they're paired with twin 40mm Bofors or odd ducks like French 37mm. Ostensibly, these mixed batteries should yield lower DPS overall, but that's not necessarily the case. What's even more infuriating is how the game handles these mixed batteries. It apparently considers them all the same. While the quad mounts may have generated larger numbers initially (in theory), each mount deals the same amount of damage. So if you had a battery of 6x4 Bofors plus 10x2 Bofors generating a total of 120 damage per tick, the loss of any one mount would subtract 7.5 damage per tick, regardless if it was a quad or a twin that was axed.

Here's the list of quad 40mm Bofors mixed with other AA guns.

11.81 DPS - 4.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Lyon (tier VII French Battleship)*
15.75 DPS - 6.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Atlântico (tier VIII Pan American Battleship Premium)*
17.06 DPS - 6.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Lion A-Hull (tier IX British Battleship)*
18.38 DPS - 7.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Florida (tier VII American Battleship Premium)*
19.33 DPS - 7.36 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 75% accuracy - Colorado (tier VII American Battleship)*
19.95 DPS - 6.33 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Saint Louis (tier IX French Cruiser)*
20.48 DPS - 6.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Cleveland (tier VIII American Cruiser)*
20.48 DPS - 6.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - AL Montpelier (tier VIII American Cruiser Premium)*
20.48 DPS - 6.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - San Diego (tier VIII American Cruiser Premium)*
21.50 DPS - 6.14 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Midway (tier X American Carrier)*
21.74 DPS - 6.90 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Boise (tier VII American Cruiser Premium)*
22.05 DPS - 7.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Wichita (tier VIII American Cruiser Premium)*
22.26 DPS - 7.07 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Buffalo (tier IX American Cruiser)*
22.44 DPS - 7.13 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Helena (tier VII American Cruiser)*
22.50 DPS - 6.43 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Enterprise (tier VIII American Carrier Premium)*
23.10 DPS - 6.60 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Saipan (tier VIII American Carrier Premium)*
23.63 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Wukong (Tier VIII Pan Asian Cruiser Premium)*
23.63 DPS - 7.50 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Charles Martel (tier VIII French Cruiser)*
24.41 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 90% accuracy - Fiji (tier VII British Cruiser)*
25.06 DPS - 7.16 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Lexington B-Hull (tier VIII American Carrier)*
25.67 DPS - 7.33 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Chung Mu (tier IX Pan Asian Destroyer)*
25.90 DPS - 7.40 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Kidd (tier VIII American Destroyer Premium)*
27.13 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Gearing (tier X American Destroyer)*
27.13 DPS - 7.75 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Yueyang (tier X Pan Asian Destroyer)*
27.30 DPS - 7.80 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Marceau (tier X French Destroyer Premium)*
28.88 DPS - 8.25 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Monaghan B-Hull (tier VI American Destroyer Premium)*
31.50 DPS - 9.00 damage per tick at 3.5km every 2/7 seconds at 100% accuracy - Le Fantasque (tier VIII French Destroyer)*

If you think Bofors are bad, it gets worse with large calibre mounts. Flak damage scales up with tier as do the number of flak bursts generated. Toss on accuracy shenanigans which affects how many flak can spawn and the disparity between battleship and cruiser flak is night and day, even if they're using the same guns.

In World of Warships, this mount generates anywhere from 18.9 to 35 DPS depending on the ship it's mounted on. That's a huge variance and counter-intuitive. Pair it with a twin Bofors or a French 37mm, and it generates as little as 11.8 to as much as 31.5 DPS.

The Proposal

Facilitate understanding of AA and Flak in port. It's not designed to be clear currently.

Get rid if accuracy. It's not needed, for one -- sustained AA DPS isn't a credible threat to CVs. For another, it doesn't even affect "accuracy" -- it affects rate of fire. Yeah, go figure that one out. This causes weird shenanigans for battleships with 0.41s pulsing fire on short-range batteries clipping and losing shots when attack craft enter their 0.1km dead-zone. "Oh, your guns pulse and do 286 damage per tick? Yeah, sucks to be you if you lost one of those pulses because it clipped into the dead-zone, sucker."
Uniform gun damage per mount type. This is much easier to understand. It also might prompt players to get excited about how many guns their ship has.
Uniform gun range per mount type. This mostly done already, but there are a few odd ducks when you get 40mm Bofors mixed with 76.2mm/50s on higher tiered ships, or Bofors paired with pom poms, etc. We had this before. We can have it again.

I'd like to go so far as to suggest that flak get standardized too, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Mouse out.

Navalpride33 · April 22, 2022

Make AA DEFENSE Great Again... I'm Navalpride33... And I support and endorse, any change to fair (Bipartisan) AA Defense.

Fair AA defense for all...

Spoiler

I've been advocating for change since 0.8.0 series destroyed the AA mechanic... As you can see... I do a bad job at advocating.

Nevermore135 · April 22, 2022

10 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

didn't matter if it was found on Chung Mu, a tier X destroyer

Tier IX? Also, Puerto Rico is tier X, not tier IX.

I would like to see a return to uniform range/damage per gun type, though. In anticipation of the counterarguments about this being a balancing factor that you alluded to, even a system halfway between what we used to have and what currently exists would be an improvement, such as having the AA specs of guns be consistent at each tier.

Asym_KS · April 22, 2022

11 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I've been double-challenged.

Not only was I initially challenged to post discussions about the sorry state of AA power in World of Warships, these threads have a habit of getting locked for being non-constructive. So let's address that with the following points.

This series is not meant to be inflammatory.

These suggestions are serious.

The goal is not to disparage or punish CVs or people who enjoy playing them.

The goal is to improve the interaction between surface ships and aircraft by giving surface ship players more agency when under air attack.

The present AA system is designed as an obstacle for CVs to overcome. If a CV player mismanages their air groups, they risk running out of individual plane types. It is not designed to protect surface ships. The skill floor to overcome the dangers of AA is very low while the ability to reduce damage to any degree compromises the efficiency of surface ship's positioning and battle influence. There is no active defence surface ship players can undertake to guarantee safety for themselves or allies. In summary: AA mechanics in World of Warships suck. They've been designed not to protect surface ships, but to act as an obstacle for aircraft carriers to mitigate. Because of this, surface ships don't interact with aircraft -- they are simply victimized by them. This is not fun. This is poorly designed. I would like to see it changed.

The Proposal

Facilitate understanding of AA and Flak in port. It's not designed to be clear currently.

Get rid if accuracy. It's not needed, for one -- sustained AA DPS isn't a credible threat to CVs. For another, it doesn't even affect "accuracy" -- it affects rate of fire. Yeah, go figure that one out. This causes weird shenanigans for battleships with 0.41s pulsing fire on short-range batteries clipping and losing shots when attack craft enter their 0.1km dead-zone. "Oh, your guns pulse and do 286 damage per tick? Yeah, sucks to be you if you lost one of those pulses because it clipped into the dead-zone, sucker."

Uniform gun damage per mount type. This is much easier to understand. It also might prompt players to get excited about how many guns their ship has.

Uniform gun range per mount type. This mostly done already, but there are a few odd ducks when you get 40mm Bofors mixed with 76.2mm/50s on higher tiered ships, or Bofors paired with pom poms, etc. We had this before. We can have it again.

I'd like to go so far as to suggest that flak get standardized too, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Mouse out.

I agree. This simply makes sense. No two ships, depending on when they are represented in the game, should have the same values. A WW1 refit for WW2 in 1942 was now where near the AAA platform after a refit in 1944 and on. The Iowa class ships were refitted several times into the 1980.....

The game should be no different.

My suggestion agrees with your: era specific values. My personal suggestion would be to allow AA designed and fitted ships be able to act the part of what their real life hulls did in WW2. AA ships to include the IJN's DD line with the radar they had in WW2.....

Well said and I appreciate the work that went into ^^^^^.

goldenpollywog · April 22, 2022

It's too bad posts keep getting deleted or hidden or simply locked in these threads.

Unfortunately it's an problem that WG has tried to sweep underneath the rug over the years. This causes frustration anger and downright disappointment with a lot of players.

We'll see how far this one goes but it shows that WG to me doesn't really care about the players. The people in charge have no clue. They don't want reasonable arguments for what they input into this game. They just want Positive input so discussion are very one sided and don't really tell the tale.

LittleWhiteMouse · April 22, 2022

5 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Tier IX? Also, Puerto Rico is tier X, not tier IX.

I would like to see a return to uniform range/damage per gun type, though. In anticipation of the counterarguments about this being a balancing factor that you alluded to, even a system halfway between what we used to have and what currently exists would be an improvement, such as having the AA specs of guns be consistent at each tier.

Thank you, there's going to be typos aplenty. Lemme fix.

And while I would love to see Wargaming do a complete rebalance of AA -- babysteps. It would be a huge win if they just made AA values uniform on a per mount basis.

goldenpollywog · April 22, 2022

Thank you mouse appreciate all your effort :cap_like:

Ramagar_RoK · April 22, 2022

I would also make some of the captain skills/and flags do both AA and secondary buffs. Having a flag/skill for just AA is so pointless. Ships that spec secondary/AA should be able to be effective and make sense.

Volron · April 22, 2022

Yeah, never made sense to me that two of the exact same gun that use the exact same shell would have different values because they are on different ships. Can't keep going as this will derail, but the point is made. A quad mount bofors on a destroyer will not magically do 100% more damage than one on a battleship. Standardize plix.

goldenpollywog · April 22, 2022

really a joke about how they've done the AA system I mean give it a standard.

If you want to tweak aircraft fine but the AA values should be the same.

LastRemnant · April 22, 2022

If you are going to buff AA give CVs infinite planes wargaming buff their damage also :fish_cute_2: Go crazy make fighters better but again you need to give CVs infinite planes and damage buffs I am like if ships have infinite shells and torps why can't CVs have infinite planes :fish_haloween:

TheOmegaDuck · April 22, 2022

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10).

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

LastRemnant · April 22, 2022

3 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10).

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

What I find interesting is that tiny ships like Halland have better AA than mega-ships like Yamato and Satsuma But that's just me

LittleWhiteMouse · April 22, 2022

2 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10).

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

And just in case you thought there was an obvious pattern, Indianapolis (tier VII) has more than Pensacola (tier VI).

ArIskandir · April 22, 2022

31 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The Proposal

Facilitate understanding of AA and Flak in port. It's not designed to be clear currently.

Get rid if accuracy. It's not needed, for one -- sustained AA DPS isn't a credible threat to CVs. For another, it doesn't even affect "accuracy" -- it affects rate of fire. Yeah, go figure that one out. This causes weird shenanigans for battleships with 0.41s pulsing fire on short-range batteries clipping and losing shots when attack craft enter their 0.1km dead-zone. "Oh, your guns pulse and do 286 damage per tick? Yeah, sucks to be you if you lost one of those pulses because it clipped into the dead-zone, sucker."

Uniform gun damage per mount type. This is much easier to understand. It also might prompt players to get excited about how many guns their ship has.

Uniform gun range per mount type. This mostly done already, but there are a few odd ducks when you get 40mm Bofors mixed with 76.2mm/50s on higher tiered ships, or Bofors paired with pom poms, etc. We had this before. We can have it again.

Yes please, uniform values per gun mount help even in terms of game immersion (eat my Bofors daka you flying scum :cap_rambo: )

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount.

BadDecisionDino · April 22, 2022

9 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10).

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

Good gravy.

Look, even CV Players should want this uniformity.

I would not want to have to memorize whether every single ship is a "good" AA platform because the physical properties are irrelevant. It's bad enough already that you can't generalize across class+nation. Being able to map out "oh, SHIP X has got the 100mm turrets - better stay away with my BF109s but maybe the Spearfish on my Implacable could handle it" would be a fantastic step forward for understanding and planning carrier interactions.

zenaxos · April 22, 2022

What would you like the end result to be? I see lots of suggestions for technical changes, but I'm unclear on how you think AA will be "good." You continually complain about AA and how horrible it is (and I don't disagree, even as a sometimes-CV player). But what's the end goal? Did you describe it in Week 1 of this?

Are you interested in paper planes, so if you have a good AA ship you have a chance to take out all the planes in an enemy squadron before it can attack you? If so:

What counter will CVs have? If you increase the regular dps of AA then a CV wouldn't be able to get near some ships, ever.
Will all CVs have infinite planes, like the Soviet line, to compensate for significantly increased losses?

If I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible, please explain what the end result of your suggestions should be. I'm trying to understand, but maybe I haven't been reading your posts long enough to get it.

LittleWhiteMouse · April 22, 2022

17 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount.

That should be an upgrade or commander skill, frankly.

LittleWhiteMouse · April 22, 2022

Just now, Vuppe137 said:

What would you like the end result to be? I see lots of suggestions for technical changes, but I'm unclear on how you think AA will be "good." You continually complain about AA and how horrible it is (and I don't disagree, even as a sometimes-CV player). But what's the end goal? Did you describe it in Week 1 of this?

Are you interested in paper planes, so if you have a good AA ship you have a chance to take out all the planes in an enemy squadron before it can attack you? If so:

What counter will CVs have? If you increase the regular dps of AA then a CV wouldn't be able to get near some ships, ever.

Will all CVs have infinite planes, like the Soviet line, to compensate for significantly increased losses?

If I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible, please explain what the end result of your suggestions should be. I'm trying to understand, but maybe I haven't been reading your posts long enough to get it.

If I was in charge (and I'm not, nor should I be), I'd want to see agency for surface ships -- more than the present Just Dodge™ meme.

zenaxos · April 22, 2022

1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

If I was in charge (and I'm not, nor should I be), I'd want to see agency for surface ships -- more than the present Just Dodge™ meme.

"Agency" how?

ArIskandir · April 22, 2022

5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

That should be an upgrade or commander skill, frankly.

As a module upgrade could be interesting, AA Fire Director Mk II or something like that.

BadDecisionDino · April 22, 2022

27 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yes please, uniform values per gun mount help even in terms of game immersion (eat my Bofors daka you flying scum )

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount.

That seems to be basically in line with module upgrades in general. When going Hull A to Hull B your rudder shift is cut in half or you trim 2s off your main battery reload or your turrets suddenly spin faster; it's all justifiable by "they electrified various manual-hydraulic-pnuematic pumps-hoists-motors-whatevers in a mid-30's refit." Main battery increase range with a new director module is a given.

With the baseline of "you still have 20 double 40mm mounts" ... sure. The confusion of all the values shifting on upgrade will be offset by the fact that guns have similar numbers ship-to-ship, probably even more so than main battery since the AA mounts are so heavily shared across lines and even nations. Possibly you'd want to combine main battery and secondary director upgrades into one module to avoid overloading the upgrade screen experience.

Hull A --
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 17.5
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range2.49 km.

Hull B --
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 17.5
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range2.49 km.

102 mm/45 QF Mk.V on an HA Mk.III mount6 х 1 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second16.8

. . . Firing Range3.51 km.

Director B -- (upgrade independently of Hulls)
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 19.2 (^10%)
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range 3.11km (^25%).
( If you have Hull B, then also...)

102 mm/45 QF Mk.V on an HA Mk.III mount6 х 1 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second16.8

. . . Firing Range 4.3 km. (^25%)

Pugilistic · April 22, 2022

Glad to see you’re back and in great form.

I’ve been raging over Bofors ever since the Great Dissembling.

Ensign_Cthulhu · April 22, 2022

Just push for the US CL in the supership line to be a Cleveland-class Terrier conversion and be done with it. You know you want to.

iDuckman · April 22, 2022

1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Uniform Performance Per AA Gun-Type

Sorry, I disagree with this one. In principle, the less homogeneity the better, so long as it's reasonable. IMO WoWs has already gone too far in this direction. For instance, in the USN lines that all use the ubiquitous 127"/38 DP, the contribution to the aura (hit %) used to increase as the AA fire control systems improved (in other words, by tier), especially with the introduction of radar and VT fusing. (Not enough, IMO, but the flavor was there.) For some reason they abandoned that. Now all those guns have the same effective DpS.

[I use paper values. If you achieved your Bofors values through testing then I defer.]

IMO, range should also increase with improving FCS.

1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Get rid of accuracy.

How else to model the fire control systems? Just .. don't? Base everything on the caliber?

You observations re: inconsistency I very much agree with.

Mouse makes a post every week about how crappy AA is in World of Warships: Week Five

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members