How I Would Have Done CV Rework in World of Warships

15,467 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (824 votes, average: 4.39 out of 5)
Loading...

How would I have done the CV rework? Well…it’s different in some ways to the current rework we got in 0.8.0.

78 Comments:

  1. Great ideas! I think anyone but WG could have come with a better option. And doing balancing on live is a complete joke, ruining games for so many people that do not understand/know what is happening

  2. WG should have hired you instead of EarlGrey, they need ideas for game balance. Not more damn marketing and Premium Lootboxes.

    • +Akshay Anand He was also extremely salty on reddit when people complained over the mechanics of the CC captain competition. He said something along the lines of “Well if thats how you whine over something we do then maybe we won’t do something like this again!”

    • Admiral Elo J Fudpucker

      Earl IS a great guy, but since he got hired the marketing push has been overwhelming… they need to slow down the fire hose or push data and gimmicks…

    • Admiral Elo J Fudpucker

      +Khan Ngatai ” he allows ichase to make these videos and thats it. ” “?? allows?

    • +LurifaxDK I kinda knew that’s how he is. I can understand the pressures of being the public face for an internet mob, but to dismiss legitimate criticism and consumer grievances is quite stupid.

    • +Khan Ngatai you are completely wrong on both counts. Grey doesn’t ‘allow’ Chase to make videos, you moron. And it’s just your opinion that I’m a dickhead, which means you can shove that opinion up your arse.

  3. The issue I find with that ‘manual controlled large caliber AA is that it will require you sometimes to deal with 2 things at the same time : shooting at the enemy ships with your main battery, and aiming with large caliber AA. Lot of stuff to do IMHO, especially if you play a high rate of fire ship.

    • That was how Classic NF worked, and the guns were a lot harder to use as well because you had to know where your shells went when they were at a certain angle.

    • Brilliant idea, think that way – in torpedo view mode you also don’t use main guns but still able to control ship.

    • how is that different from an interaction with two surface ships? I mean the aircraft have more mobility but if suddenly a second surface ship like a destroyer pops up you will also have to split your attention and deal with that second ship. you’ll probably pay it a whole lot more attention, since it can potentially oneshot you (and of course risks it’s own destruction to do so) vs aircraft which only risks that squad and only has the potential to at max take a chunk of your hp off. (which is why we need lowish aircraft reserves back).

    • Dealing with two things at once will be welcomed by old RTS players, and new players will learn how to do it. Besides, you would really only have to do this for less than 10% of the battle.

    • Maybe make the airplanes worth more so that the team would see that the damage being dealt out would be appropriate or some sort of medal or award for number of planes shot down like the kraken or some such thing. This might also encourage more team play vis driving people apart.

  4. There is absolutely no way to make carriers work in a game like this. If you make it skill based for surface ships it becomes incredibly unfair and doesn’t adress the main problem – which is that the CV can sit in the spawn and safely from any danger harass enemies who can’t retaliate in any way. And it’d be very unfair because now surface ships have to deal with both dimensions – air and sea, manoeuvring to dodge planes, aiming their AA, manoeuvring to avoid getting deleted by ships, aiming the main guns/torps all at the same time, along with positioning, concealment, objectives and all the other stuff while cancer just flies his planes and dumps some shit on you, they make a small mistake they deal less damage, you make a small mistake game over.

    The only solution is to restrict them to PvE or delete them, WG is wasting time and resources, it will end up like the arty in WoT, cancer that completely ruins the experience that can’t be removed anymore because they waited too long, put too much resources into them, and took too much money from cancer players.

    • +Kneecapper Your temper tantrum is all that is needed for me to see that not only are you cherry picking, but you have one big axe to grind as well.
      Tell the dead sailors that they weren’t killed in an “active” surface battle and you’ll have an active audience to listen to your patent nonsense.

    • +Vincent RayZero temper here- I have a high tolerance of folks like you. Guess you going off on one at me saves you from admitting how poor your reading and comprehension skills are. Whatever, enjoy your life Bro.

    • +Daniel Smith But, in Operation Juno the CV did not launch any planes, I can find no reference online to any hits by the CVs involved at mers-el-kebir nor Calabria.
      So while action were bravely taken there is no effect from the CVs above spotting for the fleet, hence my statement of no “active” involvement by CV in a surface action.

    • +eMeMpl well you forgot to fix radar seeing through mountains.

    • +Kneecapper “I have a high tolerance of folks like you.” Apparently not as you responded by attacking me, how “tolerant” of you… tolerant (ˈtɒlərənt)

      adj

      1. able to tolerate the beliefs, actions, opinions, etc, of others
      . (you really don’t know the meaning of the words you write do you?). This only makes you a hypocrite as well as an idiot.
      I never argue with idiots as they only drag you down to their level and then beat you with their greater experience.
      So allow me to take my leave of you (so that I may enjoy my life even more by not wasting anymore time on you) by offering you some advice…never shoot yourself in the foot while it’s still in your mouth.
      Now go do something useful for a change, and go piss up a rope.

  5. I like the idea, but how would that work with DDs and cruisers? When controlling the AA you would be insanly vulnerable to surface ship fire, that you normally would try to dodge.

    • Then it becomes an issue of what do u want to prioritize, what ships are around you, what do they want to prioritize, if ur by urself with no support, then u have to do everything, easy for CV to come get u. If you are grouped with focused support ships then u can focus on other surface ships, let team handle AA

    • You could copy war thunder naval systems a bit. You can still steer and stuff while aiming aa、but you can also prioritize surface combat if you want and let AI gunners man your AA mounts. The drawback to letting AI aim is that they’re not going to be able to aim as well as a player. Make them not be able to use the gun’s full tracking speed、lower rof、only shooting in bursts、less accuracy or something. This way、your aa isnt doing nothing if you’re not there、but you can still try to avoid fire while fending off an air raid.

    • +iChaseGaming I like a SANCOON’s response more, if I’m being dropped by TB and NEED to defend myself from them, but a BB is coming towards me (I’m a cruiser), I need to be able to defend properly against both.

  6. Tony Duffy, Ring Finder, Games and More

    No anger or animosity from good skilled play? What game are you playing again? Lol

    • Yeah, I love iChase and his content, but that one made me chuckle too.

    • From what this is looking like, WG is trying to rip off Battlesations: Pacific

    • Okay…fine that was a bit too optimistic…but still, probably less rage than the current RNG system…cuz that shit causes me to want to punch my monitor. Then I remember it’s a pretty 144hz curved monitor and I apologize to the monitor for my violent thoughts

    • Yeah, this struck me as quite naive. IMO a very small minority would be blaming themselves instead of the change or ship balance or the cash shop or ichase or Trump or …

    • +iChaseGaming but you are not an average player. You may acknowledge that you were bested if you are bested 1 time out of 10, if you are bested 6 time out of 10 you get frustrated instead.

  7. I think you’re right about varying the plane heights but wrong about the manual AA.

    The most important reason I think you’re wrong is you are overwhelming the player. In the middle of battle as a light cruiser, for example, when you’re trying to avoid being wiped off the map by a battleship you’re supposed to pay attention to aiming your AA armament? Way too easy to get distracted and dead real quick. All the CV would have to do is threaten and spot and that’s a lot of dead light cruisers.

    Along side that you are putting a lot of things in just to make carriers more a part of the game and doing little to improve the role of the other 3 classes of ship imo.

    What I think would work better would be a combination of reducing the range of aircraft (battleships can only shoot at short ranges compared to real life so why not do the same to aircraft) so you can only fly maybe 30-40km before you run out of fuel or some other range limitation. This would make you move your carrier which would give the enemy more opportunity to take action against it. Also perhaps you only receive the spotting information from an aircraft if you’re within a certain radius of the carrier, say 10km, which again encourages moving the carrier but also encourages other players to stick with the carrier. This way the enemy feels like they have a chance to take out the air threat and the carrier player has a whole lot more investment in what the team are doing rather than just being a lone wolf.

    • eeh we’ve had games with manual AA in the past (most notably the Battlestations series) it could work if you just go semi-auto with all of your systems so if you choose o switch to aa your Anti-ship weapons keep firing at your last targeted ship unless you tell them to switch targets or to stop firing all together.

    • I think an aircraft fuel limitation could be interesting. I think that would have worked better for the old system. Now it seems like aircraft aren’t out for very long since they can attack so quickly and then return to the CV.

    • +SCI The RTS CVs had a gigantic skill gap precisely because the majority of players *couldn’t* handle that much multitasking. Which made those who could handle it absolutely dominant.

    • +SCI Hopefully I’m not hammering the point home, consider a Worcester rather than a CV. You try to advance to your selected area of operation be that defending a DD or trying to setup on some island to lay down some HE barrage, the CV spots you. Currently they can just hover around you and highlight you without entering your AA which makes you vulnerable to enemy BB fire (which is a pain but nothing too serious if you’re aware of your angles etc), however they could launch an attack against you which means you now need to (with iChase’s suggestion) switch to your AA and start trying to drop the planes whilst dodging incoming BB shells and not ending up doing a Notser or worse and getting to the place you’re trying to. That’s an overload. It’s totally different to a CV in the old system because even if they lost focus they’d lose a flight of planes or a couple, this might limit their offensive capacity but it wouldn’t knock them out of the round like a Worcester being citadelled by incoming BB fire whilst they tried to shoot down planes.

      Yes in some rounds you can watch a TV show whilst playing but not everyone wants every computer game to be a frantic adrenaline fueled melee. I, for one, play World of Warships because of it’s pacing and increased reliance on positioning, strategy and other slow burn skills rather than the old fashioned FPS bunny hop around a corner dual wielding SMGs and calling everyone Noob. I’d suggest that if a long ranged gun duel between two battleships isn’t your kind of thing because it’s slow and you can take a sip of coffee quite regularly and still perform then perhaps a different game would suit you better.

    • +physixger That idea could work well, though it might be rather demanding on Wargaming to introduce and test both systems in parallel. Nice idea though, it’d certainly add something to being an escort ship. Maybe fit out a ship like the Hindenburg for AA support and sail with the battleships switching between AA and normal guns as necessary.

  8. Dodging torpedos while engaging an enemy ship is already like playing 2 minigames at the same time and it’s even worse when you throw more enemies into the equation. Now you have to manually aim your AA in the middle of all that?

    What I think Chase proposes with the manual AA only attempts to put more accountability on surface ship players to doing something humanly impossible (not to mention doing this with the jerky UI – seriously, WG still haven’t fixed your targeting camera overshooting you to the edge of the map when using spotter plane after all these years). If such a system gets implemented, surface ships will have to juggle multiple minigame-like mechanics at once while CV players will still be dunking on you while playing 1 kind of gameplay, albeit with more depth with Chase’s plane mechanic proposal. It may work ok at the beginning of a match, but I can see a lot of players still feeling cheesed by the CV 3-5 minutes into a match in most scenarios we’ll realistically see.

    • +Shawn Herubin Provided that any of it’s AA mounts survive till end game.

      Also still doesn’t change the fact that the CV has to only mind his planes and target, while all other ships have to mutitask vs other ships and the enemy CV.

    • +Astral43 that’s why I proposed the auto function for AA, this makes groups of ships still a big issue to planes and teamwork a necessity. A lower tier weak AA ship that is on constant watch for planes to switch to manual could protect a weak AA BB. Skill and teamwork begins to take form then.

    • +Shawn Herubin But you are left with the same issue that has been plaquing CV-ship interactions since the start, that they rely on RNG AI which removes skill and only generates frustration both sides, as it robs both of agency.

      Assuming that the weak AA BB doesn’t have to fight 1+ ship/-s at the same time that the CV is going for it.

      In a random game comprised of random pubbies, teamwork is extremely rare to the point of effectivelly not existing and no forcing from CVs is going to change that. So designing a class around teamwork is doomed to fail in randoms aka the mode that represents 90+% of WoWS matches. Also consider that on EU and SEA servers most people don’t speak the same language and some don’t even speak english.
      And you can just look are early CVs to see that it doesn’t work, because if it did, then we would still have CBT CVs with their CBT stats.

      IRL CVs and their aircraft ended the era of artillery ships, they fundamentaly don’t fit into a game centered around artillery ships. Also if you listen to iChase, he is describing a discount version of World of warplanes vs ships, and not World of warships.

    • You can’t make CVs balanced. Sea warfare completely changed when they came into being….why do you think NO country builds BBs any more? CVs are OP in real life and now in this game. In game the F key exploit is bullshit, the hell with the other mechanics. Also losing aircraft, or running out of planes IS THE KEY to some balance.

    • USSEnterpriseA1701

      +iChaseGaming I have to agree that this manual aiming thing you propose is not a good idea for the game. In the old system it could be plenty hard enough to hunt down that one moving icon that you wanted to select for the priority targeting of aircraft (or secondaries for that matter) especially when you have icons stacked on top of icons because the UI is either crowded or bugging out (that happened more than a few times).

      You also forgot one skill based thing that surface ships can do and the skilled ones have been doing since days one, evasive maneuvering. If you got good enough and paid enough attention, it was fairly effective turn in just the right way, at just the right time to avoid most or all of an air attack, even the divebombers. I have yet to get any practice with it under the new system because I long ago switched from randoms to co-op when things got too static for my taste, but from playing the heck out of the current CVs, evasive maneuvers do still work against most everything except for a skilled, well aimed torp drop at minimum drop distance. I’ve had to get good at doing that because long range drops are ineffective against bots because they know where your torps are before you do and they are very good at dodging.

      There’s a very good reason I run Yugumo, Kitakaze, Harugumo, and Shimakaze with the Type F3 torpedoes and never launch at max. range. Speaking of Harugumo, she is the a perfect example of why your idea is not the solution for World of Warships. I have run Harugumo as an AA DD since aquiring her (and all of the IJN AA DDs for that matter). I am not changing them from that build, even now that everyone is (erroneously from my perspective, the bots are plenty good at AA defense) screaming that the sky is falling and AA is garbage. Trying to run your system in Harugumo and play her in the way that I do (which made for a darn deadly AA DD, in both surface combat and AA combat, simultaneously I might add) would be utterly impossible. You’d be forced to choose between dying to planes fighting a surface target or dying to a surface ship fighting the planes. Fast moving, fast firing ships like that are incompatible with the kind of multitasking you suggest. This is not Navyfield 1 and you cannot borrow solutions from it in this way. Under your system, the only ships that would be effectively able to function with an average player would be the U.S. standard type battleships with their snail’s pace speed, slow reloads, and reasonable AA batteries.

  9. CVs should be removed from the game or regressed until a full rework can be completed and fully tested in a closed environment. In WoT artillery typically has a long reload or limited range, can’t spot and are fairly easy to evade if you keep moving. In WoWs there is no stand down for CVs launching aircraft, those aircraft are currently almost invulnerable by design (even to other CVs!), they can spot, many attacks cannot be effectively evaded by skill and cover all of the map area. As a result the game is now fundamentally flawed with dynamics skewed towards CVs. They have no real weaknesses of any sort.

  10. Manual AA for warship simulator game would be good… but WoWs is too casual for that. The way you propose CV gameplay would be more interesting, less RNG, however other classes especially DDs would get more frustrated with another thing to pay attention to/control (and with possible submarines joining the fray in the future that would sunk that class even more than rockets and radars everywhere). For it to work DDs manual AA would have to be super effective almost one shot kill and that would defeat it’s own purpouse of change, making it hard to balance/frustrating for CV palyers. With new system skill( for me it was CVs map control and divisible attention) was removed from CV gameplay reduced to how fast you can drop/press F before RNG.

    In my opinion WG should either focus on improving old systems UI that was making manual drops too hard or awkward to operate or leave old system with manual drop changed into something like infinite consumable which would allow CV player to take control of one selected squadron for limited time (10-25s) with a cooldown (time to be balanced) like in new system. It would also need many hours of unreleased testing to balance CV DMG and plane per squadron counts, other ships would need their AA dmg over time and air spoting distances balanced.
    Old system would also allow to use fighters like before to control over map/scout and aviation cruisers / BBs could be easily implemented to the game.

    But WG is too occupied with getting game more casual full of time limited tedious directives, that at the end of it give you “great historically accurate” premium ships like PEF or just tier dropped reskins A hulls. There is also more premium currencies each with too limited ways to obtain them for not a member of a clan or ranked(salt levels too high) player. And updates seem to be almost untested before going live so can be seen with bigger promotion of test server on the website and long times to balance / “collect data from live server” for next patches.

    • I did honestly like the old RTS system but, as you say, it allowed way to much micromanagement that led to an insurmountable skill cap for most players.

    • they could have both manually controlled AA and have it automatic as well just like in Battlestations. If you don’t select the AA control, then it will be just be automatic like the current system. But you’ll also have the option to directly control it if you wish to. For example, for DDs ya I understand that you don’t want to control AA with lot of things going on, but for others such as BBs I think manual AA is a welcome addition.

  11. Don’t agree with the skill vs skill argument. Largely the skill for the surface ship was there, it consisted of being unpredictable, aware and maneuvering to avoid incoming torps and bombs. I pretty much think the AA side was good and didn’t need any rework. Of course the skill on the CV side was there as well. I think the old gameplay was pretty much as it should be. Also handling the AA on ships would lead to cognitive overload, you can fire it’s main guns, maneuver AND manually handle the AA. The whole problem begins and ends with the notion that CVs should be balanced, they weren’t and the shouldn’t.

    • Disagree with your idea of trops are unpredictable. It is predictable if you paying attention to it.

    • +Hanpeng Jiang you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to say that torps are unpredictable, I meant to say that a ship should be unpredictable. And that being so is a skill.

  12. Easy answer take them out of the game! Think I’m joking? There’s a reason battleships and traditional gunned ships aren’t common place in navies around the world. It’s called air superiority. CV takes place of most other ships with planes dropping or firing ordnance with accuracy ships with guns can only dream of 😉

    • Fancy a Bev Mate? Their never going to take cv’s out of this game so either adjust to the change or leave the game as I said to another guy WOWS is a free to play ever changing game it’s never going to stay the same it will always change

    • Agree with you..CV’s have no place in a game like this. Any unfair class tbh have no place in pvp games.. A class than can shoot without being shot back at , is the definition of cheat. So yea… And don’t start with the “planes get destroyed” F off…planes are infinite, ships AA is finite. Sadly this is one way WG make money…frustrating players with shit like arty in wot, or these horrible cv’s as a concept ..

    • CrisURace well I hate to disappoint you but your just gona have to get use to cvs in this game or go somewhere else just saying

    • +Andrew978 I think you should go pop yourslef you CV wanker

  13. Oh ffs just get rid of them already. I don’t care how good the ideas are, at this point I’m just sick of hearing about it and them mucking up the game. After what you described here they may as well just make another game, nobody wants to be a bot in someone else’s mini-game.

  14. I can’t believe that Wargaming didn’t figure out all these issues BEFORE implementation. They had 1 1/2 years of development and three iterations of testing. Don’t have fuzzy good feeling about the hot fix solving the underlying problem.

  15. 1) You argue about skill? That supposed to be the main reason they done the rework. We are talking about Wows playerbase.. those people that pop smoke in front of radar cruiser, or block their own spot vision, spot torps and turn away.. at T10s
    You think those ppl gonna say ‘i suck, well played CV’ ?
    More likely they, gonna ignore it when they tunnel vision, get blapped and send ‘cheater’ msg

    2) The first idea (even us ppl that liked the RTS version) was, how great it would be to be something like Battlestations Midway/Pacific as core.. It involves multitasking, and all that. but still 10year old game and is better game to play.
    IF it was like that i would have been all-in.

    3) It will over-complicate things on how Carriers Defend themselves (with AA flak).

    You are talking about WG.. Those idiots that cant give simple switch to carrier control, and instead have autoconsumables that repair a single 5sec fire… Thats the best thing they can come up..
    We ‘ve called a numerous times. Its balance they need to worry about, not how eye-candy it looks. Instead they push it out at pre-alpha stage to their guinea pigs, because they ‘feel’ they can easily fine-tune balance issues..

    But im not mad.. They deserved it, if they don’t want to listen to community, (especially to their few skilled playerbase ideas, because they are the first that will figure and exploit half-assed mechanics)

  16. I am sorry, but no one plays this game for the opportunity to play as an AA gunner. Warship vs warship is ‘realistically speaking’ what most players are there for…you’re breaking the game to make CVs fun. Coming up with a convoluted system centred almost solely around countering CVs is fundamentally changing the game in a way few people asked for or are going to enjoy. Just my 2 cents worth.

    • Rick B they should have at least a cv mode.

    • +Andrew978 I think it’s disingenuous to suggest the negative reaction to 0.8 can be attributed to a resistance to change. The update impacted game play mechanics in a way that made the game less engaging for a significant number of the player base and that needs to be looked at. The ‘it’s free to play’ argument and therefore we should accept whatever the developer chooses to do is frankly nonsense. Many players have invested in the game and if they hadn’t there would be no game for you, me, so called community contributors or anyone else and the developers would be out of a job…even if you haven’t put money into the game you’ve put time into it and that represents an opportunity cost to you. It’s in your interest as well as mine that changes contribute to the success of the game and we don’t see the player base bleed away until the game is no longer commercially viable for WG. That means it has to be fun and a game people want to play (and spend their money on).

    • Martyn Paul just stop then if your not pleased with it then just stop playing it’s that simple!!! WG is going to do what they think is best for the game and that it!!!!! So if you can’t accept the change then just move on that it just move on and don’t play it anymore!!!!! Sitting here crying about it ain’t gona change a damn thing!!!!

    • +Andrew978 I’m guessing you’re about 10…maybe 11….I’ve invested in the game so rather then ‘move on’ I’ll continue ‘sitting here crying about it’ until WG fixes it. You can thank me and other players that have provided feedback afterwards.

    • Martyn Paul good luck lmao

  17. i think the safest solution for WG would have been to just delete the CVs (at least for the moment), making 90% of players happy while loosing the other 10%

  18. I think one aspect that is constantly ignored right now are the fighters. Fighter aircraft used to be a zone control tool that was able to be utilized by a CV and shifted around wherever it was needed. A CV could cover a cap with a friendly DD in it and support it that way. When the other CV then decided to shift it’s attack to another area, those fighters could shift with the threat. Once the new fighters are dropped, they are stationary, and therefore easily avoidable. This leads to an absurd situation in which one of the historically most effective ways of defense against air attack is completely useless. It is obviously exagerrated by stuff like the extremely fast torpedo bombers of the Hakuryu, but that is just a sidenote.
    Historically the power of naval aviation was in three aspects of a carriers capability: 1. Strike power 2. Air cover 3. Situational awareness. (Scouting).
    I think the old system really covered all those bases quite well. Now the complete emphasis is on strike power and a bit of scouting. This is neither historically correct not engaging in a playstyle way, because it leads to the shit show we are in right now. There is no real counterplay to CVs.
    This leads me to my second train of thought. Action or strategy?
    iCHase, while i find your ideas engaging in principle, i think WOWS is too fast paced to make them viable, especially with the gamemodes we have right now. The purpose of DD’s for example is and always will be the fight for caps, scouting and being able to inflict catastrophic damage with their torps despite their small caliber guns. This means they will always have to be in front of other ships, which will always mean fast paced and heated action. And that is fine, since that is the purpose of the game.
    Would we have more realistic types, scales and timeframes of battles, i think then we could squeeze in such ideas and they would probably work well. It would however be a completely different game. The fight between the main battle lines in battle of Jutland for example lasted hours. With hitrates of a few percent for the main artillery calibers and engagement distances almost to the edge of visibiltiy. Formations in which different types of ships had specific purposes and places in the line of battles made a whole lot of sense. As far as i know, not a single fleet carrier was sunk by surface ships during the whole of WW2. That doesn’t mean smaller vessles like DD’s did not interact with airpower. As you stated some destroyers, most cruisers and most BBs were in designated AA roles and it would probably be fun to defend your carrier in the way you stated against aerial threats. But I deem it almost impossible in the clusterfucks we have surrounding a cap in WOWS right now. With some people having 40 or 50% hitrates on Battleship main guns, it is simply not feasible, to sit in your DD for 60 seconds and quite literally stare at the sky.
    This kind of play would have to go into a completely different game and random battles with unorganized groups of players just don’t suit these very specialized game purposes with the gung ho attitude that is prevalent and somehow required in WOWS. That other game would probably look a lot more like an oldschool 40 people World of Warcraft raid with dedicated leaders and a choreography more akin to ballet than the knife swinging streefighter style we have in WOWS.
    The old strategic system brought a bit of that flavour into WOWS, and in my opinion did it quite well. The new system goes purely into the action direction. That might be in tune with the allover feel of WOWS, but is a lost opportunity to capture a bit of realism. The carriers of old were able to fulfill such specific roles as aircover, because they were sitting in the back and had the time to do them. The new carriers, while still sitting in the back don’t have that luxury anymore, because they 1. lack the overview they had and 2. are engaged in the same clusterfuck as everybody else.

    I guess in essence it is a question of the direction of the game. Strategy vs. Action. Carriers are not suited for action gameplay because their nature is strategic. So what I’m saying is either give them back their strategic role or get rid of them and let the surface ships that are more suited for direct engagements take the stage.

    This got way too long.

  19. CVs were a game changer IRL. They ended the role of the battleship, heavy cruisers and to an extent light cruisers. All ships basically became support classes for CVs. An exaggeration, sure, but not by much. This will be true almost regardless of the implementation for CVs in the game. Unless you remove their capability as first strike platform. Then who would bother playing them? Like it or not if CV exist then it becomes World of Defend from Aircraft. Personally not why I liked this game.

    • not an exaggeration at all, ships today are part of a carrier battle group except subs but we wont go into that. either your a CV or their to protect the CV.

  20. There’s something I do have to add to this video, if manual AA did get implemented and that’s where the majority of plane kills will come from then there’ll also be a need to change up CVs (not how CVs are currently). Plane reserves, fuel limits, plane speed will all have to be looked at. Surface ships are not going to be under constant attack (the current playing a minigame mentality). This will allow surface ships to still fight their fight against other surface ships. CVs will really have to plot and plan their attack. However, if the CV executes their plan correctly with the perfect timing, against an inattentive/unable to react to air threat surface ship then the surface ship will suffer the consequences. However, if the CV player screws up, starts an attack at the wrong point, at the wrong time then a sufficiently skilled player manually using their AA can blot the entire squadron out of the sky. Fundamentally, it still has to be a skill on skill interaction.

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      my my.
      Altitude setting.
      that would also greatly balance AA settings.
      Since many AA guns had differing maximum AA ceilings.
      The USN 127mm had up to 11.8km
      while
      the IJN 100mm had up to 13km, since it had that blazing 1010m/s velocity, that would also greatly require less lead time.

    • +VuHien2011 i think your mistaken when it comes to how much damage CV’s can do now … out side of the WIP RN CV’s and Haku the only ships the CV’s can Dev strike now are DD’s and that would have to be done by a Torp drop something that can be avoided easily if your paying attention or US HE dive bombers if the CV is a good aim and the DD doesn’t wiggle like hell …. CV’s in my experiences have been reduced to chip damage relying heavily on DOT and the repaid deployment speed of there squads allowing them to get a lot of attacks in quickly that’s how they get such high damage count … its the same as conqu HE and Fire its mostly repairable DOT … that’s why i suggested using to old CV’s squad stile and have the hole squad commit to a single attack to increase the gaps between attacks and reducing the DOT stacking but keeping the CV’s actual damage … people seem to have forgotten what CV’s were able to do in RTS form i would use Kaga to DELETE same tier battleships and midway would use it AP dive bombers to delete AA cruisers like Des or Woo while taking only minimal losses … compared to that CV’s have really had there teeth pulled

    • +crucisnh Your argument sounds like you do not like to play naval combat games. Manual AA on ships by definition is one of the biggest parts of naval combat. Watch all videos of naval battles and you’ll see tons of AA going off everywhere. I disagree with every point you said here.

    • one mistake good player make is assuming that game modified for their liking will be more successful game. Unfortunately games catering for most skilled players are unliked by majority of players. The whole rework was to simplify the game play, not to increase complexity. That being said I don’t claim to be able to judge current system, I just play with t4 CVs and rarely see CVs when I play high tier battles

    • at the Suppreme You might not kill in one pass, but with the multiple passes that the game allows now, you can kill some one for sure. And I was responding to dude who was saying why DDs and BBs can kill in one salvo and not CVs. BBs, targets can be out of sight, hidden behind an island or our of range. DD might have to go through multiple layers of radar cruisers before reaching a BB. What prevents a CV from trolling the same ship until it dies?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *