Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carriers'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Drag Interests

Found 34 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?).
  5. 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.
  6. Admiral_Sakene

    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
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. or not? Developer Darlings: 2017 Plans
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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????
  18. 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?
  19. 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
  20. 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。
  21. Fighter(s)/Torpedo Bomber(s)/Dive Bomber(s)T4 Hosho 1/1/1.T5 Zuiho 1/1/1, 3/0/1, 0/1/3.T6 Ryujo 2/1/1, 3/0/2, 0/1/4.T7 Hiryu 2/1/2, 3/0/3, 0/1/5.↓use No.50 Model 2 Ordinary Bomb↓T8 Shokaku 2/1/2, 3/0/3, 0/1/5.T9 Taiho 2/1/3, 4/0/3, 1/1/5.TX Hakuryu 3/1/3, 4/0/3, 1/1/5.
  22. Fighters/Torpedo Bombers/Dive Bombers T4 Hosho 1/1/1. T5 Zuiho 1/1/1, 3/0/1, 0/1/3. T6 Ryujo 2/1/1, 3/0/2, 0/1/4. T7 Hiryu 2/1/2, 3/0/3, 0/1/5. ↓use No.50 Model 2 Ordinary Bomb↓ T8 Shokaku 2/1/2, 3/0/3, 0/1/5. T9 Taiho 2/1/3, 4/0/3, 1/1/5. TX Hakuryu 3/1/3, 4/0/3, 1/1/5. Duplicate topic. User warned, thread locked. ~amade
  23. Retia

    Major Overhaul For Carriers

    Everyone's aware of the current state carriers are in. However aside from "nerf" "buff" and "remove" there aren't many sophisticated ideas on how to improve carrier gameplay. Well, a long time ago, in a test phase far far away, I made a post about how to improve, or better to say remake carrier gameplay. That post has since been lost in the void of time and space, however, the idea is still there. Some of the major issues of CV gameplay are: Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts A huge difference between rewards for bombing and shooting down aircrafts Aircraft/RTS controls being way too basic There are other minor issues and some major issues that will be fixed in 0.4.1, however the above mentioned problems will remain even post-0.4.1. (For example the tier difference of fighters will be fixed in the next patch) Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts Now fixing the rewards for shooting down aircrafts isn't much of a problem. Atleast that's what one would think, however the reason why (I assume) WG hasn't just simply changed the rewards is that while supporting allies with AA fire is encouraged it shouldn't be the main job of certain ships. There are a few possible options to avoid players to just run around other ships the entire battle. 1.) Only Buff Rewards for CVs The obvious 08/15 option is to only buff the rewards for CVs, making Aerial Superiority (AS) more appealing, while AA support for ships keeps being a secondary action. With the upcoming changes in the MM this should work well, since the current situation of one team having a CV while the other one doesn't won't happen anymore. The obvious downside is that AA support for ships won't be further encouraged. This could be countered by giving the Clear Sky achievement a corresponding flag that's valuable enough to be sought after. The obvious choice would be a flag, which increases AA/Fighter strength, however keeping in mind that these flags are supposed to be valuable enough to encourage players to actively try to get them something better is required. My suggestion would be a combination of the exp and credit flags with far lower bonuses. For example instead of 50% exp and 20% credits, this flag grants 10% exp and 5% credits... of course it stacks with the other flags(!). 2) Minor Reward Buff This buff would also grant better rewards for ship AA. The downside obviously is that the reward can't be increased too much, since the idea is still to have ship AA to be a secondary role. Aside from that, most things mentioned under 1) also fit here. Personally I find option 1) to be the most appealing, especially in connection with the upcoming changes in 0.4.1. And in combination with the other things I'm about to suggest below. Reworking Aircraft Gameplay Now this is the real deal. And since I'm not sure where to start I'll just pick a random point and move on from there. First of all... Focus on Aerial Superiority He who conquers the skies, wins the battle. During alpha a CV with the fighter loadout could devastate any bombers launched by the opposing CV. Obviously this ability was negated somewhat if the enemy CV had the hybrid loadout, or negated mostly if it was also running the fighter loadout. Generally you could say that during alpha fighters were the most important aircrafts, since they could render the opposing CV completely useless, all while dealing some damage to ships with it's dive bomber squadron. Ever since CBT started this changed, it changed to make CVs 100% about bombing targets, while Aerial Superiority became worthless. It's impossible to achieve Aerial Superiority in low/mid tiers, since all fighter loadouts lost 1 fighter squadron. This in return translates into the CV being unable to cover the entire map, thus bombers can and will fly through the holes inside the fighter protected area and launch their attack. In my opinion we need to see a return to the previous fighter focus. In order to do so several changes have to occur, giving the player better rewards is only a placebo, and the new ability for fighters to make strafe runs (Patch 0.4.1) will not change anything. (It's a useless ability that will get your fighters killed against any somewhat decent player) Instead what I'd prefer to see is a return of the old fighter loadouts. (3 Fighter squadrons for US CVs, equivalent amount for JP Cvs) However that's not all there is to it. Fighters need to have a much easier time obliterating unprotected bombers. However simply giving the fighters more damage would once again only be a 08/15 way to improve the situation. Which brings me to the next point. Height System Aircrafts usually operate on different heights, depending on their mission and position. A squadron of torpedo bombers will try to fly as high as possible to avoid detection, but prior to engaging it'll have to drop down to a few meters above the sea to drop torpedoes. Likewise fighters will attempt to gain high altitudes, not only to avoid detection, but also to dive unto their targets, the most favourable position for a fighter. Thus I suggest the addition of manually adjustable heights for aircrafts. These should be pre-defined heights in order to keep the game easy to control. The following heights serve as an example, I kept the number of heights as low as possible to once again keep the controls simple, while the gameplay becomes deeper. Sea Level This is the height the game uses for aircrafts when they launch/land and while they attack ground targets. It's also used for torpedo bombers, which will have to fly down to this height far before engaging their target. At this height AA guns get an accuracy bonus due to targets being easier to hit. (See below on how to get your torpedo bombers through AA despite them being easy targets) Dive bombers will have an easier time due to attacking from a hard to defend against angle, plus coming in with high speed and thus being able to escape faster than torpedo bombers. Standart Level The currently used flight height for aircrafts and also the height aircraft will go to after launching or attacking ground targets. Aircrafts are still below the clouds and can be spotted easily, in return they can also spot enemies without a problem. Unlike torpedo bombers, dive bombers don't need to get down to the Sea Level before launching their attacks. They can, thus, attack from any selected height. AA guns will still do considerable damage. (About as much as they do now) Above the Clouds Up here is where things start to get interesting. Ships can't spot aircrafts at this altitude and likewise aircrafts won't be able to spot ships. However if aircrafts or ships get spotted by other means they can be targeted. Additionally to this ships can decide to open fire into the clouds with their AA guns, this however will reduce their concealment greatly, and while the AA guns fire into the clouds they obviously can't deal with other threats. Accuracy for AA is also greatly reduced. Dive bombers can still start their attack from this altitude, however they will take longer to reach the perfect height for their attack run, hence will be inside the enemy's AA fire for a longer period of time. High Altitude Aerial combat often revolves around getting higher than the enemy to easily get into a favourable position. This height is a potential 4th one, however it might make the game too complex. My idea is to only let high tier (VIII+) fighters operate at this height. After gaining experience on low and mid tier CVs the player should be able to handle a 4th height. AA guns won't hit targets at this altitude. Bombers can't reach this altitude since they're too heavy. (Realistically they could, it would just take forever and WoWS is not a realistic game, so...) And now for the major plotpoint that makes these heights and usage of them so important. Fighter Dive Bonus Fighters diving on targets will get a damage bonus. Depending on the target they dive upon the damage will vary. Bombers being caught in a dive attack will take severe damage due to their bad maneuverability. Fighters will take higher damage, however it will come down to making the difference of 1-2 additional aircrafts lost rather than 1 aircraft lost for each side in a regular encounter. (Both squadrons being of the same strength) As you might imagine this is a huge point. Fighters will be capable of obliterating cocky players that refuse to cover their bombers or gain altitude. This change alone should (theoretically) cause a major shift towards Aerial Superiority. The majority of CV gameplay will now happen far above any ship and both dive bombers and fighters will become far more important. Meanwhile torpedo bombers will be the mid-/endgame game changers when ship AA won't be as much of a problem anymore, because... Strafing AA How to deal with the improved ship AA? What to do with your fighters after obliterating the enemy's air forces? Simple, order your dive bombers and fighters to make strafe runs on the target's AA to open a path for your torpedo bombers. So here is the first prototype on how this could work. Dive bombers will automatically open fire with their guns after dropping their bombs, dealing low to medium damage to the target's AA armament. In addition dive bombers can be ordered to focus on enemy AA, translating in lower damage/fire chance from bombs but far higher damage to enemy AA armaments. Fighters can be ordered to launch strafing runs to damage/destroy enemy AA. Since they lack bombs and their guns are equipped for anti-aircraft rather than ground attacks they'll do less damage than dive bombers. They will use a lot of ammunition while strafing, which is why it should only be considered while the enemy fighters are downed or busy elsewhere. Torpedo/Dive Bombers The original torpedo bomber squadron should be a hybrid squadron. I.e. instead of launching them with torpedoes they should have the option to launch with bombs instead. Changing the loadout will add +5 seconds to the resupply, in the beginning of the battle/prior to the first launch the change will be instantaneous. The bomb loadout will be weaker than the official dive bomber squadron's and torpedo bombers lack the guns to deal additional damage to AA armaments. This way torpedo bombers won't be useless early game, however sneaky/clever players can still try to utilise torpedo bombers early game if they find a way to get past the enemy's aircrafts/AA. Dive bombers won't be able to mount torpedoes. Possibility to mount small bombs on fighters while reducing the fighters' speed. Final Conclusion I probably forgot to mention a thing or two again. Sadly I don't have access to the old post of mine, which I could've expanded upon instead of re-writing the whole thing with the addition of the experience I gained post OBT. Lastly this is a very basic prototype. Obviously it lacks exact numbers, however the general/basic idea of making carrier gameplay more interesting, while raising the bar, while keeping it as simple as possible to understand should come across. Personally I think the upcoming changes in 0.4.1 are not enough, and I also don't think that WG will keep it at that. They've already mentioned nerfing JP CVs among other things. However, like I mentioned above... that's the 08/15 way to do it. A complete remake of the system would be the better choice in my opinion, and if anything right now is the time to do it. The game is still fresh and major changes to the gameplay need to happen prior to the full release that will eventually knock on the door. Anyway, that's me writing a gigantic wall of flesh words. If you've read it all, ggwp. If you've skipped past all the annoying letters and words... Mfg Retia
  24. I was thinking of another mod slot for CVs and a module called dive angle modification 1&2 Module 1 would increase the dive angle making armor penetration easier but the run is shorter so they have to fly through AA more Module 2 would decrease the angle but the dive starts earlier so harder to hit but AP bombs are likely to bounce What do you guys think
  25. Don't you think the Japanese carriers terrify their American counterparts,they have more squadrons but less planes per squadron. Their squadrons make them more powerful. I in my Ranger have to battle the Hiryu as it is my counterpart but most of the times the Hiryu sneeks his torp and dive on me and killes me in the first 5 minutes of the match.It is very bad to see that Wargaming is making one side more powerful than the another.The higher tier Japanese carriers have enough squadrons to easily swarn and kill someone.Even in my 2 fighter module I am unable to fight the Japanese carriers properly.Do you think Wargaming should change this?Like give them 1 torp squadron instead of 1 and increase their dive bombers?
×