Random thoughts - CVs.

[S4pp3R]

Sooooooooo I've been thinking.

I'm in the process of writing notes and things on CVs (as is my want at least once a year) and while someone has probably suggested or mused on the following, here are some of the more interesting ones...

- CVs probably only need to provide spotting to a limited area around the planes, maybe 12-15km at most and minimap spot otherwise for cross-fire potential to be mostly eliminated.

- DFAA probably only needs to have a slight change or tweak, give up some of it's direct damage buff for utility e.g. drop pattern spread OR increased AA short/mid range by something.

- Any changes to CVs will probably necessitate buffs somewhere as spotting aside their only 'great' strength is their reach. This would be unpopular...

- Flak to AA DPM ratios I swear are all over the place... ... 

- Planes don't lock onto targets like every other armament type

Feel free to list your own/discuss...

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

1. CVs already only provide spotting to a limited area around planes, but they should only have minimap spot

2. Completely agree, DFAA in its current state can be baited out if needed, but does not matter as much. While you do lose more planes, it is a sacrifice most CV players are willing to make. I would rather be forced to bait out DFAA than to just go through it and go "owo gimme your hp"

3. I do agree that CVs will need buffs once the spotting has been nerfed. And no I will not suggest increased damage as currently, CV damage output is about the same as other classes.

4. why weegee, why

5. This could be one of the buffs CV's get. More random dispersion when dropping into smoke or unspotted targets. But this could bring issues as the APDB on MvR would need its alpha nerfed, else cruiser players will scream even more

 

These are just my thoughts 🙂 and keep in mind I took 5 minutes to write this so not much has been thought through, also just woke up pls no screm at me thx

[Reinhard_of_Avercland]

5 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

- Planes don't lock onto targets like every other armament type

It has been a thing since WG scrapped the old RTS system. I mean while the RTS allowed the use of manual drop, it was always the substitute to the "point & click" (auto drop).

There was a thread "CV drop guide" few days ago, and someone said it's now more complicated than the RTS.

[Mechfori]

There needs an exchange of damage, ability to stay battle  effective and ability to survive, reduction of said mentioned onto CV upon exchanges. CV do that to surface ships and in turn surface ships should be made able to deal that to CV upon any exchanges.

And since CV already enjoy immunity upon its own hp pool for any aerial vs surface exchange the focus then must be effected onto the ability to stay battle effective

I would suggest for each and every plane down , the regen rate of plane will take a unrecoverable reduction of regen rate, which bottoms at -80% ; and that would couple with a limitation to squadron flight that which if any squad do not had enough planes to made up for a minimum of one attack wave that squad will not be able to be selected for a flight.

 

 

[S4pp3R]

9 minutes ago, Impersonation_Gaming said:

1. CVs already only provide spotting to a limited area around planes, but they should only have minimap spot

Well not enough of a limit IMO.

10 minutes ago, Impersonation_Gaming said:

These are just my thoughts 🙂 and keep in mind I took 5 minutes to write this so not much has been thought through, also just woke up pls no screm at me thx

Pretty sure you'd have enough people defending you if someone did... Things tend to be kept civil here 😄

Otherwise yeah, fair points.

5 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

It has been a thing since WG scrapped the old RTS system. I mean while the RTS allowed the use of manual drop, it was always the substitute to the "point & click" (auto drop).

There was a thread "CV drop guide" few days ago, and someone said it's now more complicated than the RTS.

Yeah lockon and the differences between manual, auto and rework drops is something I'm thinking about over next week or so...

A thought bubble I had (that isn't feasible as a suggestion due to complexity) is to be able to directly control plane height....

Closer to the target, the more accurate your drop but the more AA hurts you...

But I'm 99% sure WG will never implement heught control as they want simple mechanics.

[Mechfori]

8 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

It has been a thing since WG scrapped the old RTS system. I mean while the RTS allowed the use of manual drop, it was always the substitute to the "point & click" (auto drop).

There was a thread "CV drop guide" few days ago, and someone said it's now more complicated than the RTS.

Well it's more like RTS style play vs FPS style play . Is it harder, kind of hard to compare, it's an apple vs orange kind of question.

[Mechfori]

Oh forget this, about the spotting part , I would say any aerial squad should had a limited flight loitering time just as there are when they commit onto an attack. It should click start once the squad get into certain distance close to an enemy or if and when enemy start AA. Whatever the engagement come about once the effective battle period expires, the squad will be forced to return to CV ( in real world this is limited by fuel on board ). 

[Reinhard_of_Avercland]

4 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah lockon and the differences between manual, auto and rework drops is something I'm thinking about over next week or so...

A thought bubble I had (that isn't feasible as a suggestion due to complexity) is to be able to directly control plane height....

Closer to the target, the more accurate your drop but the more AA hurts you...

But I'm 99% sure WG will never implement heught control as they want simple mechanics.

The slingshot tactic kinda count as height control, and it worked too well for the CVs to warrant the hotfix.

 

This height control reminds me of how AA is split in 2 categories in WoWp; low & high altitude.

• Low altitude AA works against all planes that fly in low altitude such as fighters & attack aircrafts. However this type of AA cannot hit planes that fly on high altitude such as bombers.
• High altitude AA is the exact opposite; works against planes that fly on high altitude, but not against planes that fly on low altitude.

 

And the thing about AA in this game is the fact that it ignores the plane's altitude, except the flak which corresponds to the plane's altitude. To cut it short; AA in this game is literally a pillar of no-fly zone rather than a dome. Which is odd & silly to begin with.

[Ralgon]

1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

- Planes don't lock onto targets like every other armament type

Feel free to list your own/discuss...

I have a theory on this though, although its hard to prove, even in testing grounds without the raw data.

 

It seems  likely to my (limited) programming brain that  the lockon function is somehow related to dispersion modifiers on the target ship (dazzle, camo etc) otherwise the game figuring out dispersion on any leading shots that don't put the aim in the ships hitboxes must be hella broken....... now given that bombing/rocket  dispersion is already near binary WG obviously figures it doesn't need the debuff

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

1 hour ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

It has been a thing since WG scrapped the old RTS system. I mean while the RTS allowed the use of manual drop, it was always the substitute to the "point & click" (auto drop).

There was a thread "CV drop guide" few days ago, and someone said it's now more complicated than the RTS.

Dropping has not become more complicated than RTS, but mastering, understanding, and applying the new mechanics of dropping have. Albeit I never got the chance to play RTS CV, a lot is factored into how drops are calculated and so using this knowledge does make it more complicated than RTS. 

 

1 hour ago, Mechfori said:

There needs an exchange of damage, ability to stay battle  effective and ability to survive, reduction of said mentioned onto CV upon exchanges. CV do that to surface ships and in turn surface ships should be made able to deal that to CV upon any exchanges.

And since CV already enjoy immunity upon its own hp pool for any aerial vs surface exchange the focus then must be effected onto the ability to stay battle effective

I would suggest for each and every plane down , the regen rate of plane will take a unrecoverable reduction of regen rate, which bottoms at -80% ; and that would couple with a limitation to squadron flight that which if any squad do not had enough planes to made up for a minimum of one attack wave that squad will not be able to be selected for a flight.

 

 

I personally think that the damage output of CVs is balanced, but the spotting mechanic and AA mechanics need changing. Players should be able to control their plane altitude in order to mitigate AA, and AA needs to be much stronger the closer to a ship you get, as someone mentioned previously there needs to be high and low altitude AA. But changing the regen rate to what you have suggested would make saving planes a very important skill in CVs, but even then its something any player can do if they just take last gasp. This would also make CVs a lot more passive, and tbf there are players like myself who love to move around their CV, sacrificing a lot of planes for map control and positioning. If this were to be taken into account, that would be an entire playstyle almost completely mitigated.

 

19 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

I have a theory on this though, although its hard to prove, even in testing grounds without the raw data.

 

It seems  likely to my (limited) programming brain that  the lockon function is somehow related to dispersion modifiers on the target ship (dazzle, camo etc) otherwise the game figuring out dispersion on any leading shots that don't put the aim in the ships hitboxes must be hella broken....... now given that bombing/rocket  dispersion is already near binary WG obviously figures it doesn't need the debuff

afaik this does not exist, nor have I seen dispersion get worse against DDs with dazzle or against ships that have camos on them. 

 

1 hour ago, Mechfori said:

Oh forget this, about the spotting part , I would say any aerial squad should had a limited flight loitering time just as there are when they commit onto an attack. It should click start once the squad get into certain distance close to an enemy or if and when enemy start AA. Whatever the engagement come about once the effective battle period expires, the squad will be forced to return to CV ( in real world this is limited by fuel on board ). 

A fuel limit would be nice, and would force CV players to position more wisely, but if both this and the aircraft regen change were to be implemented, this would heavily decrease damage output as well as match impact, making it possible for even unicum CV players to get deplaned unless they only attacked isolated targets. Add on a spotting change into minimap spotting and there goes almost all of a CVs match impact.

 

I apologise if my wording isnt clear or if my logic is pretty pepega, I'm pretty tired, hope you guys understand 🙂

[Ralgon]

4 minutes ago, Impersonation_Gaming said:

 

afaik this does not exist, nor have I seen dispersion get worse against DDs with dazzle or against ships that have camos on them. 

 

 

🙂

Then at what point is it calculated and how? Has to be calculated before hits are applied otherwise the dispersion means nothing, and it's not like the tooltips and by extension a full commander skill are just there for show. (that's the kind of thing that starts lawsuits, especially when people are paying for items that grant the bonus)

Doubt it can be within "x" pixels of the ship either cause we would of heard a blow up about destroyer "dazzle zones" by now which would be getting exploited............

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

20 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

Then at what point is it calculated and how?

Afaik, it is calculated when you click the drop button. Taking into account maneuvers, altitude, weather, and speed. This makes most sense as the player is able to manipulate bombs and torps however they want (see my CeeVee drop guide).

[Rongjian_Liang_2019]

Talking about the ships AA, just as an historical side note, during WWII the most effective AA comes from the patrol squadrons of the CV. For the USN, all its destroyers have surface to air radar and fitted with Combat Intelligence Center to direct nearby squadron to intercept enemy attack squadron. The AA on ships only serves as a last defense, and usually the main purpose is to deter enemy attacks, making them maneuver and dropping their ordinance prematurely. Shooting down large number of plane is not the task for ship borne AA, historically. In the later part of WWII, in the Pacific theater, USN CV carries a much larger portion of patrol fighters than the attack planes, mainly to protect the fleet from IJN carriers attack. 

On the intelligence side, WoWs UI does an amazing job as every spotting is relayed almost instantly (except for some rendering time) and correctly, the only job of the player is to interpret them. Also the IFF( identification friends or foe) is done automatically. This, in essence, means that every ship regardless of nationality is fitted with CIC and shares a common intelligence channel once they are on the same team. Early spotting of enemy attack squadron is usually done by the front most destroyers in games, and the friendly CV could decide to perform an attack on the other side or to interfere the enemy attack by dropping a fighter squadron on the way.
 

Then how about keeping the AA on ships as they are now, and allow CV players to deal with each other’s attack squadron more dynamically? Currently the fighter squadron isn’t very effective against CV manual attack( they could avoid them even just by flying by the patrol area, and even tagged the planes could still perform one attack run). CV players could sacrifice for some damage dealing abilities while build into some sort of “anti CV” style by carrying more fighters than attack planes. As for the spotting side, this shouldn’t be nerfed heavily because this is a major way of how CV influence the battle in WoWs. And the ship borne AA should impact the dropping pattern on planes, which isn’t that well implemented in game right now.

 

 

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

1 minute ago, Rongjian_Liang_2019 said:

Talking about the ships AA, just as an historical side note, during WWII the most effective AA comes from the patrol squadrons of the CV. For the USN, all its destroyers have surface to air radar and fitted with Combat Intelligence Center to direct nearby squadron to intercept enemy attack squadron. The AA on ships only serves as a last defense, and usually the main purpose is to deter enemy attacks, making them maneuver and dropping their ordinance prematurely. Shooting down large number of plane is not the task for ship borne AA, historically. In the later part of WWII, in the Pacific theater, USN CV carries a much larger portion of patrol fighters than the attack planes, mainly to protect the fleet from IJN carriers attack. 

On the intelligence side, WoWs UI does an amazing job as every spotting is relayed almost instantly (except for some rendering time) and correctly, the only job of the player is to interpret them. Also the IFF( identification friends or foe) is done automatically. This, in essence, means that every ship regardless of nationality is fitted with CIC and shares a common intelligence channel once they are on the same team. Early spotting of enemy attack squadron is usually done by the front most destroyers in games, and the friendly CV could decide to perform an attack on the other side or to interfere the enemy attack by dropping a fighter squadron on the way.
 

Then how about keeping the AA on ships as they are now, and allow CV players to deal with each other’s attack squadron more dynamically? Currently the fighter squadron isn’t very effective against CV manual attack( they could avoid them even just by flying by the patrol area, and even tagged the planes could still perform one attack run). CV players could sacrifice for some damage dealing abilities while build into some sort of “anti CV” style by carrying more fighters than attack planes. As for the spotting side, this shouldn’t be nerfed heavily because this is a major way of how CV influence the battle in WoWs.

 

 

oh wow, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I never actually knew this. I personally think that fighters need to have a way to be controlled by the player while doing attacks, this way both CV players can defend and attack at the same time, which is what CVs are meant to do but fighters are useless right now.

[S4pp3R]

40 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

Then at what point is it calculated and how? Has to be calculated before hits are applied otherwise the dispersion means nothing, and it's not like the tooltips and by extension a full commander skill are just there for show. (that's the kind of thing that starts lawsuits, especially when people are paying for items that grant the bonus)

Doubt it can be within "x" pixels of the ship either cause we would of heard a blow up about destroyer "dazzle zones" by now which would be getting exploited............

 

18 minutes ago, Impersonation_Gaming said:

Afaik, it is calculated when you click the drop button. Taking into account maneuvers, altitude, weather, and speed. This makes most sense as the player is able to manipulate bombs and torps however they want (see my CeeVee drop guide).

The dispersion is calculated when you click based on aim and target lock (if guns). Then the target can move to mitigate, your shells will hit the place they were going to hit - if the enemy ship is there then it'll go through the contact implications.

So when you click the game takes into account all of the 'modifiers' and applies them to the formula + RNG.

[S4pp3R]

16 minutes ago, Rongjian_Liang_2019 said:

Then how about keeping the AA on ships as they are now, and allow CV players to deal with each other’s attack squadron more dynamically? Currently the fighter squadron isn’t very effective against CV manual attack( they could avoid them even just by flying by the patrol area, and even tagged the planes could still perform one attack run). CV players could sacrifice for some damage dealing abilities while build into some sort of “anti CV” style by carrying more fighters than attack planes. As for the spotting side, this shouldn’t be nerfed heavily because this is a major way of how CV influence the battle in WoWs. And the ship borne AA should impact the dropping pattern on planes, which isn’t that well implemented in game right now.

That's a really good point/idea...

Definitely it would be nice if the patrol fighters were more effective as anti-plane rather than spotting...

I'm not sure if WG have tested varieties of modes for this but we know they are at least looking at it thanks to the release of a string of patrol-fighter based skills.

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

Just now, S4pp3R said:

 

The dispersion is calculated when you click based on aim and target lock (if guns). Then the target can move to mitigate, your shells will hit the place they were going to hit - if the enemy ship is there then it'll go through the contact implications.

So when you click the game takes into account all of the 'modifiers' and applies them to the formula + RNG.

For the most part bomb and torp RNG on CVs is very predictable, SHokaku can double/triple cit on a broadside target if done correctly, 2 torp CVs when you suddenly jerk your reticle the drop will make the torps go into the edges, USN HEDB has mostly a 2 2 2 drop pattern if done correctly, otherwise they get yeeted into the water if your altitude is too low and you're manuevering at the same time. Almost everything is predictable

[ChokeMeHardDaddyBondrewd]

2 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

That's a really good point/idea...

Definitely it would be nice if the patrol fighters were more effective as anti-plane rather than spotting...

I'm not sure if WG have tested varieties of modes for this but we know they are at least looking at it thanks to the release of a string of patrol-fighter based skills.

I definitely agree that fighters should be changed, another thing that should be changed is dynamic CV stats depending on the amount of players in a match (plane reserves, hp, etc) in order to balance CVs in gamemodes such as ranked or clan battles. Currently the ruler of CVs in low player gamemodes is FDR with its hp pool and ability to melt the tanking power of a team. I dont know how this would be balanced but uhh, yea thats one idea.

[dejiko_nyo]

Bring back RTS CV. It is much simpler. Point and click if you are lazy. Point-shift-click-shift-click-shift-click if you are not.

[Rongjian_Liang_2019]

Yes and I think multitasking is only for the RTS CV back in the day. Now you could still do some spotting on your way to attack, and drop a squadron if you wish. I have used “manual spotting” by hovering my attack squadron over some important targets (like DD) just that my team could focus him and get the kill. 
 

The altitude control of fighters would be very nice, as in air-to-air dogfight, those planes with higher altitudes have more room to perform maneuver and are thus usually in better place. The importance of spotting enemy attack squadron and its altitude is that friendly fighters could climb to a higher altitude and fight them more effectively.
 

Historically, a task force (in USN fashion, which could have more than one CV and CV escort )has  limited communication channels to direct their fighters, and they could only cope with attack from 5 - 10 different directions. Royal Navy and USN have implemented a systematic framework of “how to shoot down planes and protect the fleet”, so IJN using large number of attack planes, coming in several directions only, stood no chance against the organized intercept from USN fighters.
 

However, in later war, IJN used Kamikaze attack which were organized in much smaller squadrons(2-3per squadron instead of 10-20)and attacked the fleet from multiple direction and low altitude.

Multiple directions of attack flooded the USN intercept channel, and low altitude made intercepting even harder as the planes are difficult to pick up by radar, and fighters consume more fuels when flying low so the friendly fighters may not have time or range to intercept them.

The Kamikaze attack also focus on the peripheral USN DD as well, since they provided early spotting and directed the fighter squadron. USN suffered such a severe loss on its reconnaissance DD by Kamikaze attack that at one point it was considering using submarines as early spotting to avoid the heavy loss of life.
 

 This tactics proved to be very effective, and the Kamikaze attack had an overall 39.6% hit rate. The same philosophy of flooding enemy anti-air channel and flying close the waves are largely inherited by anti ships missiles, which are guided by computer instead of suiciding pilots. 
 

It would be nice if we could see similar tactics in WoWs. The main problem is how to implement this with minimal changes to the game mechanics and UI.

[Watboy]

I have a simple suggestion. DFAA makes the ship immune to cits, fires and floods from air attacks. CV's keep their planes and can make their strikes as normal so can stay happy, DFAA equipped ships won't lose half their health to one squadron. Win-win. Probably not historically accurate, but when has that stopped WG.

[Ralgon]

2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

 

The dispersion is calculated when you click based on aim and target lock (if guns). Then the target can move to mitigate, your shells will hit the place they were going to hit - if the enemy ship is there then it'll go through the contact implications.

So when you click the game takes into account all of the 'modifiers' and applies them to the formula + RNG.

i get that... but scenario.

 

DD pops moving at full speed showing broadside using dazzle and a +4% dispersion camo. Regardless of target lock you almost need to aim a half screen ahead of the dd to "hit" it. Without a lock how does the game determine you're even shooting at the dd in the 1st place to apply the dispersion mods? Secondly if those mods were applied to aircraft would rockets and bombs be even worth dropping?

[Moggytwo]

This is an incredibly difficult issue, and one that leads to many disagreements.

I think it's important to try and identify the problems before attempting to suggest solutions.  I personally think the only significant issue with CV's is the lack of agency that many players feel while being attacked.  Many think that AA is their way of combating the CV, but AA is purely there to provide tactical game play for the CV, and has little to do with the way the surface ship fights back.  AA is not their to provide game play for the surface ship - the mitigation for the surface ship against CV's is the same as against any other ship type - maneuvering and positioning.

Now I personally find it really engaging playing against CV's in my surface ships, and really enjoy the interaction.  I have a fair bit of experience in CV's though, and so I know intimately what will ruin the CV's day, and when I'm doing that well.  This is subtle though, and for players who don't have extensive experience in CV's they almost certainly will not realise the correct course of action, when they are executing it well, and exactly the effect it is having on the CV.

So the focus should be mostly on making it as fun as possible for the surface ship to successfully outplay the CV that is attacking them.  Just changing this one aspect will solve the CV issue almost entirely imo.

As for other issues, there are less important nice to have things that could improve the interaction.  I would like to see CV's have their fighter consumable removed, but instead be able to put a single fighter patrol down anywhere on the map at any time.  The fighter would fly there quickly from the CV, and then you could relocate it at any time, but the planes would have to fly to the new location.  In this way the CV could defend priority targets, and this would open up good team work opportunities.

6 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

- CVs probably only need to provide spotting to a limited area around the planes, maybe 12-15km at most and minimap spot otherwise for cross-fire potential to be mostly eliminated.

I know we have disagreed on this before, but I think the spotting system is perfectly fine for CV's as is.  More spotting in the game is a good thing imo, and spotting is a key strength of the class.  The ability to spot the right target at the right time is a valuable skill for CV's.  The limitations on CV spotting are significant, as ships have much lower air concealment than surface concealment, and the nature of CV's mean the spotting is for short periods only.  DD's are a much better spotting class when it comes to spotting flanks for extended periods.

Having said that, I think the mechanic of dropping a fighter instantly at any point on the map that then spots the enemy for a minute is an issue.  As I said above, I would remove the fighter consumable completely and replace it with a CAP that you could assign to any point on the map, with a flight time to get there.  I would also make those fighter planes do minimap spotting for the team only (but normal spotting for the CV).  These fighter changes would have a hugely beneficial effect on the enjoyment of the game for everyone imo.

 

1 hour ago, Ralgon said:

DD pops moving at full speed showing broadside using dazzle and a +4% dispersion camo. Regardless of target lock you almost need to aim a half screen ahead of the dd to "hit" it. Without a lock how does the game determine you're even shooting at the dd in the 1st place to apply the dispersion mods? Secondly if those mods were applied to aircraft would rockets and bombs be even worth dropping?

If you are not locked on to any target, you get a 100% dispersion debuff, so even though the game does not apply the dazzle or camo dispersion debuffs, this is irrelevant as the dispersion ellipse is massively bigger than any effect those debuffs would have.  As for CV's, dispersion debuffs are not applied to them in any way.  The debuff comes by the surface ship maneuvering which then causes the CV to have to maneuvre their planes, which then increases the size of the dispersion ellipse.  Shell dispersion does not have this effect at all.  Both systems are quite well balanced in their own way.

[Mechfori]

6 hours ago, Impersonation_Gaming said:

...

A fuel limit would be nice, and would force CV players to position more wisely, but if both this and the aircraft regen change were to be implemented, this would heavily decrease damage output as well as match impact, making it possible for even unicum CV players to get deplaned unless they only attacked isolated targets. Add on a spotting change into minimap spotting and there goes almost all of a CVs match impact.

.. 

🙂

 And that is how it should be, there is no reason a single class of ship enjoy an unfair advantage that both battle and survival potential never actually take any real pain and hit and reduction upon engagements. As discussed earlier it's a matter of ability to balance capacity to harm each other both side. Surface ship can had their module shoot. Their HP reduced to a point that they cannot go battle and even turrets , Torp launchers , AA, Secondaries destroyed .. the plane squad in CV term equate and should be the same.

The point is not about keeping CV advantages, which even if these change took place CV still enjoys , plane regen , immunity to own HP pool upon aerial to surface confrontation. Spotting still there so long CV player do not waste his/ her own planes just as surface ships need to protect their own HP pool and modules.

Unless there is a mechanism that put same advantage upon surface ships , otherwise one must ask how can this call a balance if surface ships not allow the measure to return the harm , and keep the harm upon the CV. Surface ships getting their module destroyed are permanent. HP gone are gone .. in fact after reflection my suggestion for reduction of plane regen rate should had a far lower bottom limit, say at worst the plane regen rate should be reduced to -95%. My take is for each and every plane dow the rate should take a reduction of -1%

With the suggestion it do not take away the CV players ability to impact the match but it will come a long way towards allowing a true two way engagement instead of the all one sided that it is now. 

[Mechfori]

3 hours ago, Watboy said:

I have a simple suggestion. DFAA makes the ship immune to cits, fires and floods from air attacks. CV's keep their planes and can make their strikes as normal so can stay happy, DFAA equipped ships won't lose half their health to one squadron. Win-win. Probably not historically accurate, but when has that stopped WG.

Then DFAA pretty much need to be on each and every ship disregard including CV themselves. And not only that but DFAA will always need unlimited charge and super short cool down ( Vs current CV squad mechanism )

The issue with AA still as @Moggytwo had put it, it's not really AA. And so long AA do not AA it will always come back a complain. For the game itself it need to made it AA to actually AA and/or significantly alter the exchange upon any surface Vs aerial engagement so that both side are allow same measure of offensive / defensive capacity and potential which right now is all swayed one side only

I too agree CAP need extensive overhaul.