Jump to content
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023  Read more... ×
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023  Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carriers'.

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
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 39 results

  1. Garfield62709

    12.6 The New Aircraft Carriers

    I have tried the new "Concealed Maneouvers", playing as the ultimate CV hunter - Asashio The CV get to do a big minefield. As a DD I have no way to deal with it, especially if it is dropped in a spot between two land masses. To be able to deal with thise minefields somewhat reliably I need Depth charge airstrikes, usally nly available to BB's & heavy cruisers. This puts the destroyers in a weaker position than they al;ready have (having to deal with CV's, hybrid CV's, submarines & radar). I don't think is is good for balance between the different types of ships in the game.
  2. Japanese carriers: consistent, rewarding and strong. It is an extremely good tech tree, objectively being the best carrier branch. However, I have to say that the planes that these ships carry and the role they play is outrageously inaccurate. Before you reply and discuss about this topic, please keep in mind that this thread is NOT a place to talk about the in-game performances of these ships/planes. I am not trying to change the plane HP, armament, or anything that relates to changing the game balance. 1st plane I would like to change is A8M Rikufu, seen as upgraded attackers on Hakuryu. This plane is based on 20-Kou prototype fighter (二十試甲戦闘機). I assume that wargaming used this as they have already used the famous A7M2 Reppu as stock module. However, this aircraft was a late war plan. A mockup or a proper blueprint did not exist, and even its name Rikufu is not confirmed. Instead, I suggest replacing this aircraft is A7M3-J Reppu=Kai. This is an upgraded version of the A7M. Having a heavy armament of 4 30mm cannons, the aircraft design was significantly changed so much that it even seemed as a completely different one. The blueprint of this aircraft was found in 2005, and a prototype was being made which wasn't completed due to the end of the war. 2nd is the J7W2 Shinden=Kai, seen on the upcoming Japanese Super carrier Sekiryu. First of all, this aircrafts existence in history is highly questionable. It is said that the Japanese army had an "idea" of installing a Jet engine to the J7W1 Shinden, However no blueprints were made and according to Nishimura Mitsuo, an engineer that participated in designing the Shinden, there was an idea but the plan hasn't been discussed or prepared properly. Also, the Shinden was a high-altitude interceptor that specialized in shooting down USAF heavy bombers. It is weird to see these planes operating on a carrier as a rocket attacker. Therefore, I suggest replacing this with Kikka, seen as fighters of Hakuryu before the CV rework. This aircraft which basically is a Japanese Schwalbe, or Me262 existed as a real design and a few planes were made. As most attackers on CVs are the same aircraft as fighters of the RTS CVs, I think this plane perfectly matches Sekiryu's tactical attackers. Finally, I would like to change the order of aircrafts already in game. This is because planes that sre famous and played a dramatic role in history such as D3A, or the Type 99 carrier bomber, seen on Ryujo as dive bombers, are stock modules which will be rarely played with. Also, J5N Tenrai. This aircraft was built by Nakajima aircraft late in the war, and 6 planes were completed. Although this aircraft did exist, it was meant to be a high-altitude interceptor to counter USAF air raids on Japanese cities. It is weird as in this game this aircraft is seen as upgraded torpedo and dive bombers on Hakuryu. This is caused because the order of the planes have been messed up, and wargaming ran out of planes to use. Therefore, I would like to change this as below: Current: Plane/Carrier Hosho Ryujo Stock Ryujo Upgraded Shokaku Stock Shokaku Upgraded Hakuryu Stock Hakuryu Upgraded/Sekiryu Normal Sekiryu Tactical Attackers A4M A5M Type 96 A6M2 Zero A6M5 Zero N1K2-J Shiden=Kai A7M Reppu A8M Rikufu J7W3 Shinden=Kai Torpedo Bombers B4Y B4Y B5N2 Type 97 "Kate" B6N Tenzan B7A Ryusei C6N Saiun J5N Tenrai R2Y2 Keiun Dive Bombers D1A1 D3A Type 99 "Val" D4Y2 Suisei D4Y3 Suisei B7A Ryusei A7M Reppu J5N Tenrai Changed: Plane/Carrier Hosho Ryujo Stock Ryujo Upgraded Shokaku Stock Shokaku Upgraded Hakuryu Stock Hakuryu Upgraded/Sekiryu Normal Sekiryu Tactical Attackers A4M A5M Type 96 A6M2 Zero A6M5 Zero N1K2-J Shiden=Kai A7M Reppu A7M3-J Reppu=Kai Kikka Torpedo Bombers B4Y B4Y B5M1 Type 97 "Kate" (Mitsubishi) B5N2 Type 97 "Kate" B6N Tenzan C6N Saiun B7A2 Ryusei=Kai R2Y2 Keiun Dive Bombers D1A1 D1A2 D3A Type 99 "Val" D4Y2 Suisei D4Y3 Suisei B7A1 Ryusei B7A2 Ryusei=Kai Explanations of added planes: D1A2- Succeeder of the former D1A1 (Hosho Bombers are this), also known as Type 96 bomber (96式艦上爆撃機) or "susie". A biplane designed by Aichi Aircraft, approx 400 planes produced. B5M1- A Mitsubishi version of the famous Nakajima B5N "Kate". This aircraft consisted of 3 types, B5N1 the early Nakajima version, B5M1 the Mitsubishi version, and B5N2 the late Nakajima version. Although most of the productions were B5N2, this type was also widely produced and used by the IJN. Differences were that the Mitsubishi variant had fixed landing gears and a slight difference in airframe. B7A2 Ryusei=Kai- A variant of B7A1 Ryusei (Shokuku TB/DBs). This aircraft was equipped with a new engine (Homare type 23), but never entered mass produciton due to the end of the war. Prototype was made. I placed this aircraft as the TB/DBs of Tier 10 Hakuryu, as Ryusei is the first IJN aircraft that could conduct both torpedo attacks and dive bombing, and was the ultimate version of Japanese WW2 carrier aircraft. It perfectly matches with history and no other plane will match better on this place. A7M3-J Reppu=Kai- explained above Kikka- explained above Finally, please note again that I am NOT intending to change the game balance at all. All the changes above should be conducted without changing the in game spec of each aircraft. (For example, Kikka should have the spec as J7W3, and B5N2 as Shokaku stock should have the same spec as the current stock module, which is B6N Tenzan). Also, planes on the Japanese premium CV Kaga should also be changed accordingly (Kaga currently has stock Shokaku aircraft, and it will after these changes too). I'd love to see the changes above in game, even if not all of them. Thx for reading.
  3. Ever since 0.9.2, i kinda have a love and hate feeling about playing as carrier right now. There are times when i can't even pass the flak screen before all my planes getting chewed out. Any help ?
  4. Hello hello, I know I'm probably going to get the ol' "git gud" and whatnot but hey, if people don't say anything, nothing ever gets done about it. So I'm about 4 days in, I thoroughly enjoy the game at it's good moments, and even at it's average moments. Unfortunately since stepping in to Tier IV the good moments have almost entirely dried up for me. What's the issue? Carriers; not only am I regularly running into 3 CV games, it's often without a full team, so we're talking 3 CVs out of 7-9 ships aside. At tier IV no ship has decent AA, a lot of players are new (such as myself) and refuse to coordinate to overlap AA, and the game stagnates into a farm fest where half the team turtle and the other half try to push out, which means the carriers get a free farm. I'm glad that I didn't put any money into this game yet, I've been watching highlights on YT for a while, mostly Flamu and TheMightyJingles. This had given me a gold-tinged vision of the game, where I didn't see the horrible thing that is the CV spam. My question to Wargaming is; why is this oppressive playstyle a thing? I've been going over the forums for the past 2 days since encountering the horror of CV spam and I'm finding fairly regular posts talking about it since almost this time last year. You have the analytics of the playerbase so you should be aware of the large number of CV players playing TIV CVs vs other TIII-TV players. At one point in matchmaking I had more CVs than Cruisers, Battleships and Destroyers combined. So why has/is nothing being done to encourage a less stale meta? At this point, I simply don't want to play anymore, it's honestly too stressful to play, take a few minutes to find a game, load in, cross my fingers and then I finally get in and: 2 CVs. 3 CVs. Even 4 CVS! I'm just slumped into my chair now, a sneer on my face and a heavy heart. The fun is gone. Either my CV's win, or their CV's win, but everyone else loses. I understand that the notion of restricting a certain number of ship slots has been brought up numerous times, why can it *not* be implemented? Perhaps slower planes at low tier, or less health to correspond with the airplanes of the time? Maybe even less range? Why can nothing be done about this? I've attached a screenshot I took for the purposes of this post, just turning on the matchmaking for a bit to show the demographics. (it's not the one where I had more CVs than all else ofc) I'll leave this post now with just this to say: I do enjoy the game that *can* be, but I do not enjoy the game that most commonly *will* be. Quick addendum: I don't think that there isn't counterplay to carriers, but I feel that they are able to do too much in this bracket due to a lack of reliable AA. Another potential fix in my mind would be to lower the number of volleys a squadron can put out, meaning that you can counter them indirectly by maneuvering to avoid the torpedoes, to steer away from the dive bombers. The reason for this is thatI don't think you can outmaneuver a full squadron of torpedo bombers at present in tier III-V, you course correct to avoid the first set of torpedoes but leave yourself largely open to the second set. The other issue I have with the current over-saturation of CVs is that you can quickly be gooned by multiple carriers, removing any and all counterplay. Or perhaps just limit the types of squadron they can take, so they are less of an 'answer for everything'. You want to focus BBs? Torpedo bombers. You want to hunt down the DDs? Rocket planes for you! Anyway, do your best to have fun.
  5. HSF_Akeno_Misaki

    CV numbers between servers database

    Is there a list or database showing the number of CVs on the different servers. I believe that Wargaming made one and showed it to the CCs during their last visit in Russia. Thanks
  6. HSF_Akeno_Misaki

    CVs are OP pls fix

    CVs have too much of an influence in the match. The CV rework was to fix this and and make them more accessible to players. However there has been a serious backlash. First of all when DDs are complaining about CVs, they seem to forget how before, CVs could keep you perma spotted easily. Now is not the case. The biggest difference between the rework and old rts system is that there are always CVs out there. Here are some of my suggestions to help balance things out yet also require CVs to step up their game and not spam things and farm damage. 1) Limit 1 CV per side at T8. Since T8 has all the premium CVs, they are basically just too influential on the game. An Enterprise and Saipan side would easily demolish a double Shokaku side. This shouldn't be the case. They can also gang up on any T6 ship and make him redundant 2) Give DDs the fighter consumable where they "CALL" fighters "FROM" the carrier to their location. This would give them protection and make them an intergral part of the game again. The fighters could even have a travel time from the carrier to the DD to balance things out.This ties into number 3. 3) Make fighters automatically aim for enemy aircraft as soon as they enter their effective radius. Currently carriers can easily get a premature run or escape before the fighters engage . This shouldn't be the case, fighters should automatically attack any planes that enter their effective radius. These are some of my suggestions and I would like to hear any responses. Destroyers have always hated games where there is a carrier, even before the rework. I find that people seem to be forgetting this. Superunicum carrier divisions were pretty common before the rework but I've noticed a drop in their number. Before you would always get some anchor T7 Saipan with two T8 AA ships division, this kind of div doesn't work as div anchoring doesn't work anymore. I don't consider the reworked CVs to be OP. It's just that they need a proper counter by the players and I thing making DDs have that consumable would help them. I personally like the new carriers as now everyone can fly.
  7. Player_3356594408

    Carrier Strategies

    What are people's strategies for using carriers? I've tried different approaches, heading out with bombers has been one on the grounds that first thing I'll meet will be a destroyer. I should change to attack aircraft, I suspect because at least they do damage (my only carrier is the Hermes and the bombs are designed to scare birds). I switch to torps fairly late (probably too late) because normally tier five ships wreck the squadron so I'm lucky to get anything off. As for the carrier itself, Hermes, I keep it moving but probably don't get it close enough because travel times are a shocker. I need to work out flak, it seems that the flak clouds operate more like mines than flak bursts (I.e. flying into the cloud after it has burst does the damage). I guess this means more weaving back and forth.
  8. Player_3356594408

    CVs Making it Work

    I have played WoWs Blitz for the last 8 months and have almost all lines to tier 7. Got introduced to the game by a friend and well, because of bandwidth limitations, went for blitz. Recently I picked up Wows again (on a new account) and have been working my way through understanding it. It's massively different in so many ways. More different than I expected and it's a bit of a learning curve (at anything but the lowest tiers , down there i do great because I know how to shoot). Anyway, I picked up the Hermes and I have to say, coming from the world of blitz, I much prefer the PC version. I've seen a lot of feedback that it's not perfect but I'd view it as a step in the right direction. It's way better that the top down view that makes you feel like you're playing a different game. Are there improvements to be made, sure. But it's a lot better than that top down view. I can play those Japanese carriers and control 4 airgroups in the skies at the same time - on my phone. I was very much looking forward to using those skills on the PC with the much better inputs. However, with the new changes, at least this means that the damage being done TO has been directed by the player itself.i have to get there, I have to aim, I have to hit. I've seen one good comment that the damage back is random. That's true but with what I see, it's a step in the right direction. The challenges that face Wargaming are obviously bandwidth and processing time of running AA, the risk that the difference between player directed AA and AI AA throws the whole game out of whack, and how much time and attention ship players spend on the sky. I never see anyone address that last one. When you're in the thick of it and getting lined up, do you really want to be looking at the sky directing flak? tl;dr the new planes view is a positive step , but it is very likely a step.
  9. Player_3356594408

    The Hermes

    I've got the Hermes and my impressions are. Attack planes good but I need to get better at using them. What number of rocket hits would be considered a good strike? Using rockets is easy, but tricky to get good hits. I normally hit the stern of the enemy. Are there any good places to find hints on using rockets. Bombers? Why do I get so many non penetration hits against battleships? Is this just a feature of British bombs or does it mean I'm doing something wrong. Torpedos. Practice and more lead. And learn how to release further out! The ship. I'm trying to learn to follow in behind the fleet so I reduce my travel time and can lend AA support. The ship can take a bit of a beating but once it starts, I'm a big target. Setting a course that follows the fleet (without going backwards, I won't be repeating the zig, zag pattern anytime soon), means setting waypoints with 45 degree turns regularly. Usually I do this after a squadron has taken off and been sent the right direction. Strategy, scout and get my team something to shoot at. Then once the battle has started find out where the destroyers are, once that's done, blow shit up. Any tips or hints I could use? How is the Hermes different from other carriers (those bombs?).
  10. Commander_Stacey

    CV Rework Quality of Life Changes

    The new game-play is good and I really enjoy it. BUT, there are some changes that must happen to better balance them out; a) There needs to be a cap of 1 CV per side, per game. Any more than that is just too overwhelming for both teams, especially DDs who are suffering the most from this rework. You have to put concerns about matchmaker aside in this case for the sake of player comfort. b) There needs to be a cooldown on Torpedo bombers, to prevent the constant torpedo spam as has been showcased in some recent YouTube videos by some CCs. 1.5 - 2mins should be sufficient, that way it forces the CV driver to take out other aircraft types to support the team as opposed to just farm damage for themselves with torpedoes. All other classes of ships have a torpedo cooldown, CVs should too. c) CVs need preferential MM for their tiers. A T8 CV trying to compete against T10 AA is just ridiculous. It's next to impossible to deal any damage, especially in the Kaga or the Enterprise which have weaker planes than the standard T8s. Restrict low and mid tier CVs to mid tier in the match maker at the most, not bottom tier.
  11. Commander_Stacey

    CV Rework

    A few weeks ago a lot of us participated in the closed beta test for CVs. Since the test finished we haven't heard anything further on the matter. Are we able to get an update please on the progress since? Thanks
  12. My current CV Rework Rework (WiP) Preface Numbers are obviously subject to balancing requirements, what I have detailed is an IDEA and as such should be very much subject to change. Premise The current iteration of the CV rework is boring and 1-dimensional. We need something that has a little more gusto and dynamism. So I'm proposing changes based on: The action-based system will not change significantly AA needs to be relevant CVs need strike potential Easy enough to learn, hard enough to master Conditions Reduce ‘dot’ damage done by CVs, significantly reduce chance of fire/flood to roughly once every 2 drops. Reduce damage of each attack run a bit, so that ‘maximum’ theoretical damage output of 2 wings doing their 2 attack runs is 75% of a ships HP. Which I would guess should be 2 AP DB wings v BB. Limit number of attack runs for planes to 2 or 3. For each aircraft in a wing shot down, reduce damage output but a %, eg 2% or 4% per plane or something (obviously change as needed). Add ability to have 2 flights in the air at the same time. Two Flights I am proposing a 2-flight or 2-squadron system. Basically the you have 2 flights of your choosing, any combination. The key to that combination is the balance against different targets of rockets/DB/TBs. Why have two flights? Basically I find one flight boring and the gameplay is exceptionally repetitive and stale. So the trick is to have two flights, giving the player far more choice and allowing combination attacks and CVs to actually have some mastery involved. The trick is balancing the damage. How would Two Flights work? Basically you would be able to switch between which flight is active, the active one you would control and possibly be able to set course. Either way you would definitely be able to have the second flight follow your main one around, my initial estimate would be 5 km (as always subject to change). Essentially my proposal functions around being able to do 2 attack runs per flight with a maximum potential (perfect) damage of %75 of BB HP at tier. Obviously 0 DOTs for that 'max' damage combination. DOT Damage DOT or Damage Over Time damage is the damage cause by fires and floods. The more DOT damage you add, the more painful the game becomes. IMO warships has pushed DOT damage a bit too far lately (RN BBs anyone?). DOT damage should be a risk-reward thing, not an ‘expected’. Chance of Fire/Flood should be reduced to the point that it happens ‘sometimes’ and that if you are choosing aircraft for that feature, it feels like it’s worth it but not mandatory. Potential DOT damage should scale with real damage, the better chance you have of DOT damage, the less the real damage the wing can inflict. Aircraft Damage So the biggest issue people have with CVs (currently) is the strike potential, being able to essentially ‘1-shot’ you. So I’ll use AP DB v BB as a damage metric. Perfect hit, perfect RNG (ignore detonations here), 2 wings should never be able to 1-shot a BB. So let’s just put a random limit and say no more than 75% damage and talk about this in terms of a T10 BB. 100k HP 2 wings (AP DB), a total of 4 runs, 5 bombs per drop. 75% - 75k HP max damage 4 runs, 18750 per run 3750 max damage per bomb at T10. You’d be looking at a ‘good’ 4 runs by 2 sqns being 30-40k damage on a T10 BB. (That would be max possible damage by any combo.) This is just me brain-storming, but I think you can see where this is going. Basically the amount of damage will need to be effectively scaled to AA. For using HE DBs, Rockets or TBs, you are shifting the damage metric from raw damage to a bit of DOT or what it’s effective against. TBs – I would expect 2 wings with a total of 4 runs to inflict 1 flooding. Rockets – good v DDs, do little damage to other ships but decent fire chance, I would expect 2 wings with 4 runs to inflict 2 fires on non-DDs reliably but do almost 0 damage on CA/BBs. HE DBs – less fire chance than Rockets but more penetrating power, perhaps has enough pen to cita CLs? Effective v DDs, harder to land, effective against CAs but less so than v CLs. AP DBs – Can cita BBs and some CAs, good against ‘heavily’ armoured targets. 0 DOT Damage reduction Now you would need to balance this properly with AA but the idea is that as you lose aircraft within your wing, your maximum damage output is reduced. Doing damage to the different aircraft wings therefore actually means something. I’ll touch on this a bit more in the AA section. You could even apply a ‘max’ damage reduction (say 30%). Number of attack runs You have to limit this, there has to be a reason outside of AA to go back to your CV. There again needs to be that risk-reward to committing to an attack run. Why the detail? Now your two Flight choices matter… You balance things like TBs and HE DBs fire/flood and actual damage to make it a worthwhile choice to go AP DBs OR the TB/HE option when targeting CAs. Due to BB torp reduction, AP DBs are you best bet against BBs, unless you are lucky enough to get a flooding (‘lucky’ enough), you now have a risk-reward system. Maybe you go 1 AP DB and 1 TB so that you are pretty good against CAs and ok v BBs? Or maybe one of the BBs has insane short range AA so you want the TBs so you don’t lose as much damage? AA – How to make it work? Easy, you don’t want to completely destroy each flight after their 2 runs (maybe 3) but you want AA to do something. As mentioned earlier, apply a damage reduction to each plane in the flight that’s destroyed. In balancing it, they need to have some basic conditions to balance it to. For example: No one ship should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in… 3 drops or 5 passes. No two ships should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in 2 drops, 4 passes. Etc. You basically want to make it so that 90%+, CV players will get 2 drops off with both flights and then need to return to base against a concerted AA effort, say 3 ships, 1-2 of which have good AA. AA beasts? Well obviously they’re going to need to actually balance AA for starters. But if there are issues with how quick planes are getting shredded against AA Monsters, instead of adding aircraft HP (making them imba for other ships) simply add a cool-down between plane destruction. For example, 5-10s. So at minimum it takes 50-100s to take down a 10-plane wing of aircraft but while this cooldown is in effect, the next tier of damage reduction is applied. (So while the cool-down for the first aircraft being downed is active, 4% reduction in damage as opposed to 2%). DFAA? Easy, simply make it apply a damage reduction, either max (30%?) or possibly even greater if that’s needed, 50%. Spotting Basically I see spotting as eliminated from CV play outside of the 'active' squadron. Basically either have it so that the AA attack range is the spotted range or do something interesting... ... Make is so that aircraft only spot in a similar fashion to Cyclones, quasi-visible on the minimap. Conclusion So the whole idea is to have a bit of variety and combination (2 Flights active) and at the same time keep the core action-based reworked system. In furtherance of this is a shift away from DOTs and from either aircraft or AA being OP. You also want the risk v reward system to be worth it. A concentrated AA effort? Well maybe you only get the 2 attack runs per flight, not 3? Or maybe the damage reduction is making it not worth dropping on those targets due to DFAA? Maybe the AA escort around BBs is too much, need to switch to HE DBs to take out the CLs? Maybe the concentration of camping ships is so high that 2xTBs will land just about every torp? Basically my changes would allow anyone to jump in and have fun with CVs, while a good player could use the choices available and skill in managing multiple flights to maximise their contribution. By using the damage reduction system and clearly defining which planes are effective against which ships, a balance can easily be found. Thoughts from the floor?
  13. Hi All, I know you will tell me to git gud. But lately it has becoming boring with divisional players with Massive AA and CV builds. Yes this is a rant... it will make players drop off and it is not good for the game. As soon as i see a division with CV's i can see in the MatchMaker that they all have a winrate of over 80% it must get boring for them? And people just won't play. IMHO they should ban CV's with Divisional play, it will make the game better... yes i know they can in theory do a count down, but it does not guarantee they will be on the same side. Being a unicorn with a CV division is not that hard frankly... I welcome your thoughts.
  14. Like it says in the title, please get a lot of advice and feedback from people who know RTS games and mechanics when you do this rework. CV game-play is essentially RTS, so please do everything you can to make it a good RTS experience that is fun for the players and can compliment the rest of the team in a balanced way, even if that means putting aside a bit of developer pride.
  15. anonym_2EFpjvgfY2gu

    Improve CV play - Rotate and lock Map for CV

    I find it much easier to play CV when the CV is at the bottom of the map when game starts. An option to turn the main map in 90 degree increments would be great to try out. And have the minimap follow.
  16. Hi all, I would like to know if anyone who plays carriers, use the captain skill Evasive Maneuver for their planes?? i am toying with the idea for my Independence, but i want to know if anyone else uses it, as it slows planes down when returning to the carrier..... raises hitpoints though & reduces detectability.... Discussion please...... Ordrazz
  17. Ever since the US CV rebalance, I feel like the Independence is outclassed compared to its IJN counterpart. I miss the old AS loadout. The new 1/1/1 just doesn't compete against Ryujo's 2/1/1 loadout. Even if the US have larger squadrons, 1 squadron is will still be defeated by 2 squadrons. Pls note that I'm not a great CV player, I'm just an average WoWS captain. So if anyone here has any good advises for me on how to play USN CVs, I'd be happy to listen.
  18. or not? Developer Darlings: 2017 Plans
  19. brano_2

    world of carriers?

    finally made it to tier 5, bit of a struggle considering im to tight to pay for gold, but honestly its just a bit to overpriced WOT's is fair and makes it seem a little more enticing and i have spent a pretty penny on that game. now that im tier 5 it seems 90% of battles have 2 carriers... this is a real turn off for me, 1 is a pain in the a$$ let alone 2 and i was wondering what everyone else thinks. below are my views from a new player perspective and some possible ideas to nerf/even the playing fields. matchups are overwhelmed by carriers numbers like 15 carriers, 6 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers. makes me think carriers are easy money. 90% matches are carrier x2 ////////maybe lock this so its 1 carrier per match. my last match before this rant, 2 carriers wiping a whole team with torp strikes x3 each made for a mess of 3-5 torps each plane then x 6 planes. killing any ship they targeted and 2 times 2 at once. this even had the players on their side complaining because they didn't get to barely shoot anything. they are fast, hard to find, and the closer you get the more frequent they strike you. not only that they can spot almost everyone on the map within 2 mins of match start.///////// slow em down, make them as spottable as BB's. reduce spotting range unless they have a spotter plane out, add range to torp bombers depoyment (they are dropped point blank and even most DD's don't get a chance to avoid unless they know its coming. or even enlarge or have a cool down (pilot fatigue) after a few sorties, where they have to rest or they fly with a handicap making them easyier to kill with AA or 50% less acurate. almost every match ends with carriers on top 1200+ xp. AA does almost nothing to higher tier making any mods to counter a last option. ////////////// make AA more accurate or damage inflicting so strikes on heavier ships will cost. i dunno but honestly me and my friends are new but its quickly becoming painful playing a game to just sail round dodging torps until your overwhelmed in the end. 1 friend has given up so far and im close to force quitting if 2 carriers are in a match because its just to painful spending a match watching AA fail and trying to dodge the cris cross of torps point blank on your bow. id like to see what other players think, are carriers to O.P or 2x carrier to much? is it fine and its just a noob problem? if so solutions other than hide in the corner until hopefully someone kills 1 off.
  20. captain_scarlet

    signals (combat) pack for Carriers

    Could ASIA Wargaming put some signals packs on the premium shop for carrier battles November Echo Setteseven x30 India Xray x30 Victor Lima x30 Juliet Whiskey Unaone x30 They are currently quite hard to get if you focus on carrier play Willing to pay for these and I think they would be very popular
  21. Was taking my Fiji and Essex around to farm exp and let just say my team is make of complete BS. Fiji experience : 1 v 3 win make 3 kill clean the weaker lane only for the stronger lane to lose even when the other team was outnumbered by 3 ships. Essex salt : run strike , meet fishing team of neptune and mino +cv, crippled completely when those 3 split themselves to 3 cap rendering me unable to touch them. Yeah complete crap when they keep sitting in cap and the AA murder my planes when i try to root them out ( their team go together in a big blob so no better target.Honestly, nep + mino AA is completely retarded, not even DM is as dangerous as them in AA role.Only able yo nuke 2 BBabies in yammy to lose the game. So salty switch to AS loadout , win the air all the times , get clear sky stopping 75% strikes; perma spot cv and dd only to meet a picnic team that love camping near cap. Last game win the air totally ( no strike connect on my team), only to look at the chat and see: you noob cv go back to the training room. Guess what , with total air dominance the potato wave lose the surface gunfight and come back yapping at me. Honestly i am so tired today with this kind of fiasco happen in the game and fishing div completely broke the essence of randomness. So i have done my job with flying colors and just where can i improve when idiocy run through my team head. I am completely at a lost on how to carry those kind of weights . Rant end , guess i will take a walk and go pop on some dogs in the bath
  22. Burnt_Out_Koalas

    CV Player is a potato

    I do not know what the hell is going on but there seems to be heaps more people playing CV's tonight. When a player who has a 55% winrate with BB's but 33.% W/R with carrier and 5 losses in a row with the same said carrier tonight, I think its time to go back to Co-Op and practice. It's hard enough for me to keep a 50% w/r haha when we are getting nothing but potato CV's in T7 or the opponents have a Saipan. Mind you i was pleased when we had 4 CV's and our team lost both of them within 10 mins and we won. So 6 games tonight and all of them had CV's in T7 .... what is the deal????
  23. This keeps happening, and it's driving me nuts. I was in a fully upgraded Langley, when an enemy Langley fighter squadron decided to engage my fighters less than minute into the battle. Since my fighters are fully upgraded, it should be an even match right (both squadrons are from the same ship)? No. In just 40 seconds, my whole fighter squad had vaporized, and I only managed to take down one of his fighters. Now his remaining 5 fighters are going for my two other helpless squads. And even though they were above 5 or so tightly packed friendlies, none of them were shot down by any anti-air. Now that I'm defenseless, the enemy's torpedo squad finishes me off in one salvo of torpedoes (I have fully upgraded anti-air gunners in crews). The on board AI anti-air did not shoot down any planes, and Langley + 6 Torpedoes = dead. Like how is this even possible??? If two fighter squadrons from 2 Langleys and with similar upgrades (mine was fully upgraded) engages each other at the same time, you would expect all fighters to all die at the same time, or maybe 1-2 to survive on one side. How is it possible that one Langley squadron gets taken down completely, while the other Langley fighter squadron only loses 1 plane? (And there's 6 planes per squadron!). This is totally unfair. Is someone bribing the RNG?
  24. So, with it now being 2017, any news on new Ships for the british tree, odd that even after 3 years all they have is a cruiser line... Especially considered in 1939 at the start of WW2 the british had the single most powerful navy in existence 15 battleships (with 9 building) 7 Carriers (with 6 more in construction) 15 Heavy Cruisers 41 Light Cruisers (with 9 more building) 8 AA Cruisers (with 16 building) 1 Mine Laying Cruiser (with one more building) 181 Destroyers (with 24 building) 65 submarines (with 11 more building) 54 Escorts (with 80 more building) 44 Minesweepers (with 10 more in construction) and lastly 2 monitors To give them only a line of cruisers long after the US and Japan have complete trees is just insulting Would also like to see modifications to the cruiser listings, since cruiser is a blanket term for a large amount of ships such as heavy, light, battle, escort, armored and protected Speaking of cruisers I would also like to known about HMS belfast re-sale? Only just back into the game after it is no longer completely garbage to find i missed hms belly
  25. 我能想到的就是砍日航的魚雷機隊數,讓日航跟美航一樣只有一隊魚雷可以用,但是擁有比美航更多的轟炸機中隊(從233變成215),使用制空甲板時再減少一隊魚雷機換成轟炸機(從422變成404),作為補償,日航8階以後給五〇番通常爆弾二型,性能與美國1000Ib炸彈相近,也因為魚雷機的減少,航空魚雷的單發傷害應該適當提升。