AA Nerf for Murica...

[josedlopeza]

Part of the update 0.3.1.5 patch notes: 

• Increased the defensive power of AA guns over 99mm by 50%
• Decreased the defensive power of AA guns at 40mm
• • Iowa decreased by 40% depending on the configuration
  • Cleveland decreased by 40%, but has its fire support ability is increased from 20 seconds to 40 seconds

Why, Wargaming, why.
did someone asked for this?
or is it just me that doesnt understand this 

 

Source: http://worldofwarships.com/en/cbt/news/update-0315-downtime/
 

[Dr_Venture]

I just a fight in my New Mexico...got curb stomped by a carrier driver. Focused fire on a torpedo bomber strike didn't even hurt the planes.

 

BB's need a buff in the AA gun department...this is ridiculous. They can sneak in planes without a care in the world now.

[Omega_Weapon]

Carrier players asked for this. Too many instances of entire squadrons getting shot down before they can drop a single bomb or torpedo. The nerf may be too heavy handed, but US AA was clearly too OP before.

[Omega_Weapon]

I just a fight in my New Mexico...got curb stomped by a carrier driver. Focused fire on a torpedo bomber strike didn't even hurt the planes.

 

BB's need a buff in the AA gun department...this is ridiculous. They can sneak in planes without a care in the world now.

 

Lower tiers were not the AA problem. I attacked a Montana once with 2 squadrons from my Lexington and both were destroyed before they could unload their ordance. There was an American cruiser nearby too, but still. Carriers need to be able to attack even high tier ships. No ship should have blanket immunity.

[Dr_Venture]

 

Lower tiers were not the AA problem. I attacked a Montana once with 2 squadrons from my Lexington and both were destroyed before they could unload their ordance. There was an American cruiser nearby too, but still. Carriers need to be able to attack even high tier ships. No ship should have blanket immunity.

 

I think the cruiser might helped, or maybe you sent too few planes after a very high value target.

 

I highly doubt he was Immune to you.

[Mason3ck]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/33054-for-everyone-that-is-whining-about-the-aa-nerf/

 

 

[ShivaX]

Does this mean they can have more range?  The reason we got told they couldn't have it before was because they'd have to lose something else.  Well they lost something else.

I mean they're already fairly meh compared to IJN.

 

 

[Fadadio]

wow thanks for the info I was about to order a bundle for beta access to play American BB's but now it seems like they have been nerfed to hell.

 

Money saved ( :

[Fadadio]

 

Lower tiers were not the AA problem. I attacked a Montana once with 2 squadrons from my Lexington and both were destroyed before they could unload their ordance. There was an American cruiser nearby too, but still. Carriers need to be able to attack even high tier ships. No ship should have blanket immunity.

 

Attacking a tier 10 along with a cruiser supporting nearby?

 

nope you need to pick out more soft targets, you cant expect to attack targets like that without getting burned

[Sirus_Patton]

 

Lower tiers were not the AA problem. I attacked a Montana once with 2 squadrons from my Lexington and both were destroyed before they could unload their ordance. There was an American cruiser nearby too, but still. Carriers need to be able to attack even high tier ships. No ship should have blanket immunity.

 

That's the problem!  Lower tier CVs were crying because you couldn't get close to the Iowa and Montana, while the North Carolina still had enough AA to avoid a lot of torpedoes.  Due to this, WG nerfed their AA before seeing how the Iowa and Montana would fair against equal tier CVs with strike loadouts (IJN) who could already attack them with minimum losses.

[Kristoffer]

It's a broken system where personal skill has absolutely no sway in how your AA performs, therefor it will either wreck or it will be useless.

 

In the end someone will always loose and arbitrarily so.

 

The Navy Field system would have been nice here where players controlled their secondaries (they must aim them) and CVs had some evasive controls (mainly altitude controls) they were able to do, thus if you were not paying attention you loose and if you are vigilant you did very well in either an AA boat or a CV.

 

In the end the current system is futilely circular and it is indeed illogical when someone always arbitrarily looses with minimal (if any) input from either the CV or the gun/aa ship.

[Pyrofiend]

It's a broken system where personal skill has absolutely no sway in how your AA performs, therefor it will either wreck or it will be useless.

 

In the end someone will always loose and arbitrarily so.

 

The Navy Field system would have been nice here where players controlled their secondaries (they must aim them) and CVs had some evasive controls (mainly altitude controls) they were able to do, thus if you were not paying attention you loose and if you are vigilant you did very well in either an AA boat or a CV.

 

In the end the current system is futilely circular and it is indeed illogical when someone always arbitrarily looses with minimal (if any) input from either the CV or the gun/aa ship.

 

Just saw this topic :\

 

Pretty much agree with everything Kristoffer said.

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/33818-aa-balance/