Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Carrier'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • Public Test Forums
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
  • Locked Threads
    • Locked Threads

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 41 results

  1. Robby_Hermanto

    German CV line

    Hi Developers, By this thread I would like propose for WG to found the German CV line. For Forum Administrators: You can move this thread to the proper section as you see fit. Here is the tech tree proposal: Tier 4: Ausonia Tier 6: Jade Tier 8: Flugzeugträger B: is an alternate design of Graf Zeppelin (Flugzeugträger A) which is a premium ship. The Flugzeugträger B has no name yet. Feel free to name it as WG see fit. Tier 10: Europa As the other nations tech tree split line are in the shelf awaiting for progress, here is the alternate tree line: Tier 4: Stuttgart Tier 6: Type II (Was a plan to convert incomplete captured French cruiser De Grasse at Lorient to a CV). Please name the ship. Tier 8: Elbe Tier 10: Weser Comments are very welcome.
  2. Greeting, fellas. This is an old WOWS player here. I have been playing the game since German battleships first appeared, and spent my time on several different servers and a wide range of ships. Though many accounts results in me not having an overall high tier of ships, I did manage to get a Große Kurfürst which introduced me to tier 10 battles. Yet this is my first post on any forums so nice to meet you all XD Honestly speaking, the new mechanics introduced to AA and carrier gameplay is a bit frustrating for all players. So here are some suggestions I want to share, and I wish the game will continue to improve and get better in the future. To start with, what is the problem with the old carrier gameplay? Personally, I think RTS or vehicular shooting is not the main issue. Even if the CV players are playing some sort of Tetris throughout the battle, if they enjoy it and the rest of the players are ok with it, then let them be. The problem lays in the sheer play style of carriers. For ships that don’t have a tremendous amount of AA power, aircrafts can simply evaporate their health bar with 2 groups of manually controlled torpedo bombers attacking from perpendicular directions—a basic tactic for previous carrier players that is almost unavoidable, and they can do nothing about it. For CV players, their planes would be immediately eliminated by some powerful AA ships like Minotaur, or just that their carrier happens to be called Langley. To sum up, this causes the players’ experience being very extreme. You’re either being dominated from the sky as Musashi, or dominates the sky as Atlanta. Same for carriers, dominating the sea as Enterprise, or being dominated by all sorts of things as Lexington. Under this circumstance, the frustration of being dominated is extremely significant, thus severely impacting the gaming experience and passion. So the change was introduced in 0.8.5. This change is overall beneficial to non-CV players, since half of the carriers are removed and up until now, planes can still be shot down relatively easy. But there are still impacts on non-CV players that are negative. For CV players it was significant. They no longer have the ability to control multiple attack groups, and they lost the capability of fighting air superiority. This change not only nerfed their damage potential, but also limited their option for tactics. Plus, the idea of summoning fighter group from bomber squad in air to patrol certain area is just...hilarious. Why is it bad for non-CV players? Well, despite the planes being easy to shot down, they can still inflict some serious damage on their target due to the new system allowing more accurate control and player’s focused attention on one squadron. This encourages all players to build AA for their captain and upgrade modules. As a German battleship fan, I really like the play style of building secondary, and not building AA often gets me into some trouble. Like I said, limiting the players’ option for tactics is not a really good idea. So, how do we fix it? I think the key reason that lead to all this mass, is that unlike real-life pilots sitting in a cockpit, PLAYERS DON’T BREAK OFF FROM THEIR ATTACK RUN. In game, CV players don’t need to account the lost of life when controlling aircraft squadrons, and they don’t get scared by the AA shells exploding in air. This allows them to deal explosive damage, meanwhile suffering huge losses. Now, human don’t like losses. Losing 5 dollar then get a 10 dollar refund just sound way worse that getting 5 dollar for free. My suggestion is that all aircrafts’ can have a 2 part health bar, or a health bar and a “morale bar”. When being fired, the morale bar would be deducted first. Upon depletion, the plane would automatically leave the squadron, and head back to the carrier. If this happens during an attack run, the plane would immediately drop his payload blindly, then break off the attack run. This allows the AA guns on board to effectively protect themselves, while not making the day too miserable for carriers. Following this adjustment, the AA power of various ship need to be reconsidered. Ships with bad AA, such as Musashi, should have the ability to dispatch at least 50% of all attack planes, while having little to no chance of actually shooting down one. Ships with moderate AA, such as Gneisenau, should be able to dispatch 70% of the planes and have some decent chance on gunning down a few intruders. Ships with extremely good AA, like Worcester, should have no problem dispatching all plane, yet not actually shooting down more than half of the squadron. Meanwhile, the layout of carrier squadrons should also be altered. Instead of categorizing into bombers, torpedo bombers and attack planes, carriers should send out “attack waves” which consists of both torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The layout differs among carriers and their respected flight control system. The current control is really great, but carriers should be allowed to control more squadron. When directly controlling one attack wave, the other wave would simply continue cruising along current direction. A fighter squadron should be added aside from the attack waves, enabling direct control and expertise in aerial combat, and they should be the ones really shooting down the planes instead of AA guns. A typical mid/high tier carrier should have a flight configuration of: 2 attack waves (with spares), each capable of making 3 attack runs, 2 of which torpedo bombers, 1 of which dive bombers, or vice versa; 1 fighter squadron (with spares) augmented with air-to-surface rockets. Those are my general thoughts on the improvement of AA and carrier gameplay. I’d like to have more discussion with you guys. See you.
  3. YukishiroHonoka

    Carrier Tips

    With the new carrier mechanics, I've been having so much fun. And I decided to do a guide on the things that have helped me secure my wins so far. 17 matches, 14 wins to 3 losses. Okay, it's also that I had awesome teammates throughout those matches so... Take a look and let me know what you think
  4. I have been experiencing a lot of game which have 2 tier VIII carriers in a VI ,VII and VIII match up. No matter how close we are, our AA combine can't do anything. Low tier cruisers and destroyers with weak AA suffer the most, a decent tier VIII carrier player can easily kill them with just 1 or 2 rocket or dive bomber squad . Every games in low tier with 2 carriers as top tier , all surface ships get wiped out and what left is just 2 carrier each team striking each other. Low tier ship suffer when being up tier is a normal thing, but having 2 carriers as top tier is just unplayable and helpless.
  5. With the CV rework are you stuck with just dropping one torpedo or is there a way for you to fire off the entire wing's load of torpedoes?
  6. I know a lot of you does not like the new CV at all, I have to admit that the new CV is quite different from the old one. Before the CV rework, my PR of CV is Bad, but after the rework, I feel like it is quite workable for me, and my rating is now sways between Great and Unicum. So I decided to have some premium CVs under my collection, but I don't know which to get. My friend bought 20 containers and he got all premium CVs out of the containers except Kaga, sounds like a worthy purchase. So I also took a leap of faith and bought 20 Premium Naval Aviation Containers for myself, and here is what I got: Of course containers is completely based on RNG, but just in case players like you might consider buying the bundle, this is for your reference. Before the patch 0.8.0, I usually chose to bulk open containers so that I can reduce the interval between I open the crates, and hence reduce the randomness of the RNG based on time. Now that the "Open all containers" option is available, I would certainly recommend using that to get the most out of the open-crate-interval reduction. Good luck captains!
  7. Hey, guys, I make a short video, I do get a lot of this even i use defensive AA or Catapult plane carrier still can attacking you easily very easy in fact... this one of my examples, so yeah WG, please balance at least don't ever make a game where there 2 CV in one game Destroyer have a really important role, when this CV's out it really cripple DD, radar already make destroyer hard please don't do this to Us ( DD player )
  8. Corsair_Zero

    CV rework Exchange

    excuse me, I want to ask about this line on the WG news public test about CV "At the same time, the exchange of the researched aircraft carriers will only be allowed in reverse order (from the upper tiers to the lower tiers). For example, if you decide to sell the Ranger, you will not be able to keep the higher tier aircraft carrier (tier X Midway)." I am a carrier player in IJN line, but in my line now I only keep the higher CV tier in order to save my vacan slot (I sell hosho, zuiho, hiryuu, and only keep Ryujo and Shokaku).. my question is, if this system is implemented, am I must re-open the line from begining again??? I need explanation..
  9. HMNZS_Riwaka

    Split Aircraft Carrier "Plane Groups"

    Hi, I am using USS Bogue and I would like to know if I can split the torpedo plane's and bomber planes into two group's Because when I play game I can not seem to split the airplane groups up into two. Thank you
  10. LordTyphoon

    I have a CV idea

    Guys, I have an idea that might revitalise CV play in WoWS, since CV gameplay is at an all-time low at the moment. Although I wouldn't say CVs are my favourite ship class (I'm much stronger with cruisers and BBs, CVs horrifically sink my stats), the impact of CVs to the history of modern warships, as well as the outcomes of major global conflicts (including WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War) is so significant that I think they are under-represented in current gameplay. Please don't be too harsh with your comments, as I am sure there are problems with my idea, but I came up with it in 15 mins so I haven't had the opportunity to figure out the kinks yet. I think that we should have carrier vs carrier battles as one of the game scenarios in WoWS. In addition to Co-op and Random Battles, CV battles will be its own battle type. Players can use carriers only, and both sides will field several carriers of matching tiers (e.g. 3 Taihos and 3 Essexs per side), with 4-6 CVs were team (or less, depending on practicality of the map, airwing size, etc.), and no players will not have full (see below) control of any escorting BBs, CL/CAs or DDs of the carrier groups. These will probably be played on the largest WoWS maps to make these battles practical. Historically, I can think of two battles in WWII in the Pacific-theatre where CV vs CV engagements were fought with neither fleet coming within visual/firing distance of each other (Coral Sea and Midway), and where the forces on either side were relatively even (at Midway, the island itself could be though of as an unsinkable carrier, but with B-17s of course). Therefore, I dont think my idea is without relevance or is unrealistic. Because carriers operated in battle groups with escorts, I don't have a solution on how to bring these other ships into the game. Making them purely AI would be boring. Historically, CV captains have some degree of authority to organise escort formations, so perhaps each CV player is allowed to control 1 escort within the fleet and position the ship accordingly (e.g. each carrier gets a cruiser of its nation for use as an AA screen, and uses the 0-key to select it and move it using autopilot, similar to how the 1-key is used to control the carrier currently). Grouping AA of cruisers together within a team could be quite devastating for the CV strike aircraft , so there will be defensive strategies in where to position them, and planes will need to exploit gaps in these escort screens. I'm not sure if there should be limitations to the distance between escorts and their carriers, or their ability to earn 'close quarter combat' for carriers should enemy carriers get close enough to the primary weapons of the escorts. Ás with current WoWS gameplay, I think CVs vs CVs will require a similar mix of individual brilliance and cooperation to ensure team victory. The exact mechanics to promote this, I have not yet come up with. The game will be a 20-minute time-limited game, but no capture-the-base or domination. The game will end either when all enemy carriers are sunk, or if the timer runs out. if the timer runs out, the team with most points wins. Sinking a carrier gives 100 pts, escort BBs sunk give 80 pts, CLs 75 pts, DDs 40 pts (or something like that). There could be some interesting tactics here (e.g. which CVs will fly combat air patrol (CAP) where, where to position fighters in an attack run, which enemy CV to focus on first, which CVs will dive bomb or torpedo bomb from which direction, diversionary attack runs, attacking fleets with planes/different types of planes from multiple angles/times to find gaps in enemy CAP). I think this can get really messy and potentially there can be a massive torpedo soup or furball fighter dogfights, but I think it will be the challenge to try to cause this, or stop this from happening, by either team depending on the situation. There is potential for this to be very fun. I think I'd enjoy this, depending on how they go with the CV rework. Imagine if both sides ran out of planes, the game becomes a serial map-wide ramming contest =D Guys please critique/build on this idea. Would love to one day play a Midway 1942 rematch as either Fletcher or Yamamoto =]
  11. Hi All, I bring you the HMAS Melbourne - the R21 - Which is a Majestic Class Light Carrier. Of World War 2 Era :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21) She would probably sit at that Tier 6 level, Planes would be either kitty hawkes, or Beaufighters - I couldn't find any carrier versions of planes, worst case scenario would be a copy over american / uk fighter. Anyways - Might be cool :) and I would definitely buy it purely because well aussie only ever had two carriers and I belive both of them had accidents
  12. Hello there comrade captains! It's been awhile since I played carrier. The last time I played CV was before they removed the manual drop on T4 and T5 CV. So i worked my way up to T6 CV and said "Yes! I can finally manual drop!". But, there is a problem. The usual manual drop button, left ALT key, doesn't seem to work. Have they changed the manual drop key? If so, what is the new key? I do not read patch notes so i'm missing a lot here. Help me comrade captains, you are my only hope
  13. S4pp3R

    The CV issue(s)

    CVs are broken atm, and I'm not talking about 'OP', I'm talking about useless... Ok, no manual drop - that's stupid and has made CVs in low tiers utter bollocks but that is not my primary issue. The loadouts are all bonkers. eg. Zuiho v Bogue You can have a situation where Bogue has 14 fighters in 2 wings vsing Zuihos 4 in 1 wing. And yes I realise this was influenced by Captain Perks, but still 12 v 4 is stupid. I could handle 8 v 12, but 4 v 14 is simply stupid. And I know this imbalance goes way up the tiers, swinging both to either nation with various configs. So my suggested solution: - Firstly why remove manual drop? Newer players? Removing it has removed 50% of the skill involved in playing CVs in the first place. (The other 50 being positioning of ship/planes). - Reduce the variation in the CVs loadouts. There should never be a situation where the numerically superior USN wings have more fighter wings than a IJN loadout, - The primary variation in CV loadouts should be between DB v TB, make it so a DB build is viable and equally a TB build is viable. If the Loadouts tier-tier have balanced fighter wings, make the loadout variation in how many TB or DBs they can bring to the battle. - Eliminate pure fighter loadouts, I'm sorry I know there are CV Captains out there who LOVE to control the skies, sweet - but with pure fighter loadouts you kill planes and spot, that's it. - Eliminate the variation in wing sizes between USN/IJN, this basically made balancing the whole thing a nightmare in the first place. Have the variation in speed or damage or health. - Let people be punished for being out of position. AA when ships group up being insane? That's fine, hell even buff it a bit at some tiers. Solo ships should feel fear when they see TB/DB wings closing in. To compensate, introduce proper tutorials about how to have effective AA (in this scenario, by staying with the fleet). So happy I didn't spend a load of creds and XP getting higher tier CVs when the entire ship type is crud.
  14. piaya

    Hybrids CVs

    Hybrid ships implementation Separate tree? Hull configurations? Premium? from reddit worldofwarthip thread Mogami CL CV Tone CL CV Ise BB CV Yamato BB CV (concept) edit: add HMS furious 1st CV hybrid configuration USN concept
  15. Imagine. Is there any admiral who actually order every plane squad to just keep the same altitude as enemy does? (e.g. high altitude should have low possibilities to be taken down, low altitude is vice versa.) I mean, even War Thunder players (got torpedo or bomb) don't approach like this. If this feature is updated, CV users should be able to plan their strategy more freely. (replacing that cancelled words => then another example, Navyfield online? #3) It does not mean to delete the current CV UI for controlling the plane squad, but wouldn't it be more fair for CV players? I personally think, something need to be done for CV. P.S. AA gun sound and effect need to be improved further. See this for further explanation about this topic. (the link will take you to reply #4 or you may scroll down.) http://forum.worldofwarships.asia/index.php?/topic/23045-cv-should-be-able-to-control-its-altitude/page__pid__296615#entry296615
  16. proaliahmadrz

    USS Carrier damage too low?

    Hello! I look for what community think about USS Carrier. To me, its relatively weak, why? 1. Only stock flight control is useful (most situation) which mean USS will always have less plane in air. 2. Unfair service time (example : 38 seconds for USS, 16 seconds IJN for reloading) & for replacing wiped squadron (IJN somewhere 30, and USS above 70 seconds!) even though the squad size difference only 2 planes! 3. Huge average damage difference, IJN always win. Here what i think to match number of aircraft in air againts IJN Bogue : AS (2FT 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 1DB) Independece: AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) Ranger : AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) *Can't tell anymore from here, not played above Ranger yet :/ If you want know more what i think for higher tier: Lexington: AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) Essex: AS (3FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 2TB 2DB) Midway: AS (3FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 2TB 2DB) So the main idea the USS always atleast 1 squadron of each type, without losing a single type, make upgrading flight control useful. And make the service time only 50% higher than IJN, since it's 6 vs 4 Making 2 TB in S loadout for tier V-VIII is broken (except for Essex and Midway to match Taiho & Hakuryu S loadout), so putting 1DB is more balanced, thus in reality the US always prefer DB. (correct me if i am wrong) Don't tell me to "git gud in USS!" , i know it but take a look at my stats, i am not pro but good enough as cv player . So what do you guys think, do USS need to be balance? (especially about flight control) Thank you
  17. legionary2099

    Getting flak in game

    Has anyone experience the flame and blame of in game chat ? All most 1 in every 4 of my carrier game i get something along the lines of where is your fighter ? you noob - f*** , report for poor play. I am extremely frustrated having to deal with these back stabbing ally at the same time of having to focus on controlling a horde of squadrons at the same time. Commanding a carrier is quite stressful as high tier where i have to dance between flak and fighter and i also get flak from the team - wth? There is also the type that go nuts and blame the whole team for loosing , when i tell them to stop it they throw back a torp or a gun salvo back at me lol. So i wanna ask those that are here on the forum , what do you think of a carrier captain ? A godlike being that you can crap on however you want and having to babysit every single one of the allied dots on the map or a human that is just like you who will make mistake and will sometimes lose focus on what is going around. TL;DR : this is a rant threat , i am too bloody angry for those that have shall we say a candy-ass that readily blame everything else when things when sore. I just so want to turn off the chat completely if not for the rare compliment that some guys give me
  18. legionary2099

    Upgrades reduce concealments ?

    Hi everyone i have just bought an Essex and godbless i have installed a Concealment module but : - Every flight and airgroup modification reduce concealment by 10 points (wth) lol. Guys is this a bug/ mistake or is it intentional ? I mean US cv are so hard to hide and this makes it worst
  19. Hello guys , to be honest i dont know if i should loose some steam here or go punch a bag , it's just too frustrating. I mainly play carriers , any other class i play i just sucks. I have a blank period of a few months and when i came back it was one hell of an AA fest. In the lexi i play strike (Air superiority is just [content removed] and wasteful to me) and god at match start some one blame me with xxx useless 0 1 3 where is your 2 0 2 , when i do die or unmanage to contribute i get something like : noob cv report him. And this is my point to those chats : there are 3 part of the problem : extremely powerful AA from every surface ship and constant threat from fighter + strafe. Now from my experience everyone treat cv like a devil and run everything to counter him : most surface ship i see ( BB , CA and a few DD ) run AA speced build and almost always have AA consumables. That means i always have to do a test run of 1 Db or Torp strike to test the water and then follow up with another strike. And here comes the lol AA immunity from USN BB (lower tier CV like my Ryujo cannot touch them at all even if they are yoloing like a *** , which is just simply bad from a balancing point) , also that press the invicible button most CA have. The problem with this is it limit who i can go after 1st ( rejoice not having to touch WASD for those guys ) That is fine and all until i have to deal with the AS plague from other USN cv and some Shokakus. Now , with the AS threat i have to constantly dance my strike crafts to avoid strafes and attacks and that is very hard especially with 3 1 2 shokaku with 3 strafe runs and once i do run that severely limit my present option to strike a target ( who i choose is only within reach and viable to not loose all strike crafts ). Finally the passive battle line up in which ships poke each other near maximum range which increase the distance my strikes has to cover since USN CV are big as the moon and has to sit near a corner to not get rekt. I dont know why but this problem happen the most in German BB , many tier of them tier 5-8 refuse to close to 10 km engagement and hang around 15km mark playing sniper scope snap shots. Combined the 3 and as you can see who i can attack is extremely limited , the 1st attack wave will almost always against a dd which i have no problem trashing unless its a Gearing or Fletcher. And this is the only wave that follow ups are possible. 2nd and 3rd waves are severely limited and mostly are targeted against lone wolf and here comes the problem : If that yolo happy go lucky guy has AA consumable , strike aborted for a minute and all follow up impossible ( fighters will come up so run ). IF it is a higher tier BB (8+) , he WASD and use the magic AA manual and drop all strike crafts. These can be solved via grouping attack and dispersed attack . However , with AS loadout cv rampant , lone targets are not even worth the time going for them because of inefficiency (follow up has to be made within a short 1-2 min time frame for dispersed attack and losses are too heavy for grouped attack , you cant sacrifiece 16-18 planes for targets like these). Too many time i have to bite the bullet and commit these suicide attack simply because i have no choice otherwise.For most of the time cv within 6-8 can split to 2 strike groups of 2 for an effective attack , however with the 3 problems presented they have to attack using single strike group and dance around for random possible targets , making focused deletion impossible (which is the whole point of the huge damage long reload for cv all about). US cv has it worst with no fighter to negate CA and BB planes when running strike and no damage to smash targets with puny DB when running AS load out. IJN cv are better with atleast partial fighter cover but their planes dies like flies to the everywhere AA happy AA everytime for YOLOers. So i have to smash dd most of the time which i feel very bad and the biggest threat in naval warfare has to go for screening ships - small targets mentality sucks hard. I also play dd and getting focused by cv all the time because they cant hit anyone else sucks. End of rant , thank you for reading this far for me , i appreciate it. Possible fix : 1. Increase short range AA and lower long range AA power for BB , CA stay where they are . Increase status effects ( burn, flood) chance while lower alpha damage. The change should be that any lone ship even at the top and with AA specced cannot and will not destroy or shoot down 80% even concentrated attack of 3-4+ squadrons before they drop their ordinance. I am fine when making costly strikes , i am not fine with making attack not has no effect and waste time at all. 2. Fighter focused ( Air superiority [content removed]) should get reduced fighting endurance ( idk why the developer buff US fighter ammo count ) , the current set up makes both AS load from US and IJN has very little if any down time at all and makes it impossible to get a strike window in with 3 fighters running around in IJN case. Strafe should use less ammo so that AS with reduced ammo count can go after strike crafts. 3. US planes should get more resistance to strafe attacks (a % bonus) and more resistance to manual AA via a skill or module since their big fat slow and not many squadrons die fast to these 2 skills. 4. Fighter should get a bonus to fighting each other so that dodge fight happen at quicker pace ( no more fighter action that takes a year of time to be done ). Fighters should be the most effective counter to planes , not AA from surface ships. 5. Troll : a new consumable called Fighting Spirit that makes any squadron lost within 30 seconds of activation instantly or after 15 seconds replaced by another squadron of the same type xD. Or another consumable that vastly increase aircraft speed by 15% orso for 30 seconds so that they can get a strike in and get out. 6. AA defensive fire should get lower duration for the same lethality for non specialized CA or other line than US ones. Any of these 6 changes are fine ( even 1 if implemented will make me happy ). GOOD LUCK everyone. If anybody meet a BB that charge like a moron thats me Derogatory. Post edited, user sanctioned. ~amade
  20. NguyenArchitakuVN

    German carrier Graf Zeppelin

    So, as us - weebs are going absolute apesh*t after the release of some new shipgirls in Kantai Collection. I decided to do something about his new babe. Graf Zeppelin-class was originally planned as a 4-ship class, including the lead ship, Graf Zeppelin (Flugzeugträger A) and 3 other ships: Flugzeugträger B, C and D. But the plan was changed to build 2 and more smaller carriers. They were influenced by Japanese carrier designs because the German lack of experience in building carriers. Only one ship, the Graf Zeppelin was launched but never completed. However, by the spring of 1942 the usefulness of aircraft carriers in modern naval warfare had been amply demonstrated, and on 13 May 1942, with Hitler's authorization, the German Naval Supreme Command ordered work resumed on the carrier. But due to technical problems, all progress was delayed and eventually cancelled. The ship was scuttled on 25 April 1945 to prevent her from falling into Soviets hand. Armament for self-defense: 16 times 15 cm SK C/28;12 times Flak (10.5 cm); 22 times 3.7 cm SK C/30 (AA); 28 times Flak (2.0 cm). Aircraft carried: 10 Bf 109 fighters; 13 Ju 87 dive bombers; 20 Fi 167 torpedo bombers. Designed speed: Up to 35 knots. Range: More than 14.000 km or 8000 nautical miles at 19 knots. Displacement: 33,550 tonnesLength: 262.5 m Beam: 31.5 m So, if this ship is added into the Kriegsmarine tech tree in WOWS, she is likely to be a tier VI. Consider her top speed is quite impressive, her aircraft loadout is quite good indeed. You all know how good the Bf 109 performs in WWII.
  21. In addition to NA shop I mean, but everyone know that. Oh I'm so torn. Should I get her or not.. Don't think she's powerful or particularity special but.. A premium CV, that may never come back. I though i will have more time to contemplate. https://asia.wargaming.net/shop/wows/specials/ https://eu.wargaming.net/shop/wows/specials/ https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wows/specials/ Asia got 7 days to decide. EU got 18 days, and NA got 14 days You have been warned LOL http://worldofwarships.asia/en/news/specials-and-events/premium-shop-20160413/
  22. And I didn't mean press alt, click on target like that. I have played Zuihou for a long time. At the time, I resign myself that I could hit 2 torps per squadron at most, because the spread is so huge. Then 2 things happen. 1 I got "distracted" by some USN CV game and forget how I play IJN CV. In USN, I drop as close as possible, (and regret choosing torp accelerate for captain.) If I do that in IJN CV, I could possibly hit with just one torp. 2 The patch make IJN torp converged, So If you drop from afar and target don't turn you could hit 3 or 4 with one squad. Now that I play Ryujo, I could auto-drop all day and get 2 torp per squad often, Probably the targets are bigger. And I have to approach with 2 group now, AA are better in this tier. Long story short, how far do you drop your torps? And how many group you bring in together. You can add how you drop in USN as well but I won't cover it in the poll
  23. DeepDarkfantasy_KR

    Need burf for US carriers

    please buff this ship: Langley: fighters are too weak i cant deal with Hosho's fighter hosho have 4 fighters but langley cant win with that Independence: need more payload its hard to kill enemy ship and Divebomber have poor accuarcy when i divebomb to enemy ship only one hits total it was not a destroyer and nerf japanese fighter's offence power or buff US fighter's offence power