World of Warships: Kaga – AA Is Fine

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (132 votes, average: 4.62 out of 5)

A match that showcases how frustrating anti-air can be. AA is very powerful even on ships that don’t have very strong AA. Simply positioning your team correctly gives you enough AA to keep you safe.

World of Warships footage of the tier 8 Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga.


  1. Sold my kaga because she lost so much planes i couldnt strike anything anymore. Was so annoying. Got like -20k credits per random game with premium time and normal economic signals.

    • mariovv45 yes sadly. Sold her trough the special inventory tab. You get only around 9k in gold.

    • The Rogue Admiral lol wtf man. You really sold her in that way? In inventory there’s cv section where you can get gold.

    • +The Rogue Admiral Better get it back from WG and resell for doubloons

    • I’ve never owned a premium aircraft carrier. I’ve sold the premium Russian t3 cruiser I got for free however long ago, and got some credits from that. Otherwise, never sold one of my premiums.

    • +The Rogue Admiral Oh thought you’re selling the premium CVs. Yes the other prem ships worth credits if you sell them, the premium CV now is a special case

  2. LOL, lets face it… NOTHING has been fun about this joke rework of carriers!

    • +Winter Last thats the funny part about t8 carriers in a t10 match: you actually got some striking power but what does striking power mean if you 1) have 0 impact whatsoever on the game even if you get to do atleast some dmg? (which is pretty much the most useless dmg you will ever see in a world of warships battle) and 2) there is a high chance you never get to use any of your striking power because fireworks like in 5:00 happens…

      i know how that feels, i played my first lexington game with the rework shortly before the first hotfix came out, one day of playing lexington and it feels like you know pretty much everything about the rework, t8 is super-useless in t10, t10s are powerful as they always were, t6 idk, probably feels like a t8 in t10, just less striking power and less AA against you with your planes having less HP so wtf is the difference?
      you said yourself t4 is next level of boring… i assume that means you have practically 0 striking power but there is even less AA against you so it feels like a t8 cv against t3 ships??

    • there is a reason why RTS CVs are far better than this shit…
      well i did have trouble with a JB when i sent all 12 torp bombers at it and they all died before they reached him…but i guess he was full AA spec…so RTS CVs got their issues but its normal.
      usually u could find a good target for u…
      RTS CVs just needed some tweaks to make them more balanced. like limit recon data to a few squads only…AA stronver over time to prevent perma DD spotting…longer torp arm distance to demand more prediction from CV strikes and better chances for target to avoid massive dmg if they maneuver correctly.

    • +cobrazax i had a few RTS balancing ideas myself, idk why exactly and i know it wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense but i had the idea for torpedo bombers that their torps deal like 30-40% less alpha dmg and they can’t get flooding against anything other than cv’s and cruisers and that their flooding chance was like 5% max. but the torps and flooding chance doesn’t get effected by torpedo protection bulges (temp. disabling engine or rudder… idk about that)

      on the other hand this idea has one major issue aussuming the informations are correct i got from a clan mate of mine about the upcoming changes to the flooding mechanics…
      my clan mate told me that after the new flooding mechanics will deal 60% LESS dmg if you get flooded on both sections than one flooding is dealing now plus the flooding after the changes will only last 60 seconds compared to the current flooding, which lasts 90 seconds and these changes are highly questionable in my opinion
      if this is correct it wouldn’t make the slightest sense, basically it doesn’t matter if you flood or even flood 2 times, you simply don’t have to worry about flooding at all since 2 fires are dealing more dmg to you, if not 2 fires, 3 fires definetly…

      there are still way to many battleship players out there, regardless of the situation they still instantly repair the first fire…
      now imagine you are playing hindenburg, the first enemy battleship gets detected right at the start of a match, you get to shoot one single salvo which will set a fire, he instantly repairs but you don’t get into position to start farming him but instead he sails into a torpedo 20 seconds later and that torpedo caused a flooding…
      he simply doesn’t care, if you get 3 fires with your hindenburg afterwards he would loose 60-70k dmg alone from fires and your HE spam, maybe even 80k…
      idk the current amount of dmg flooding deals to you but i just assume it’s 400 HP every second on a ship with roughly 100k HP…
      now imagine that battleship eats 2 torpedos on different sections and gets 2 floodings…

      400 HP minus 60% are like 170 HP per second (no i’m not doing perfectly correct math here, i’m lazy atm 😛 😛 ) 60×170 = this battleship, which instantly repairs a single fire right at the start of a battle, even though he sails full speed in the direction of a cap and he needs to assume, that there will be an enemy destroyer trying to cap or contest the base, eats 2 torpedos, both cause a flooding on both possible sections and apart from your HE salvo and the one tick of your fire which dealt 150 dmg and the torpedo alpha dmg, maybe 20-30k dmg eats 2x perma flooding which only deals 10.200 dmg (this is less dmg than a NY deals with one citadel / 10.500)
      one perma fire would have dealt 9k dmg!!!

      if i’m even close to the current numbers a flooding deals in one second to a t10 battleship and if it’s true about the new flooding mechanics (that it deals 60% less dmg to your ship with 2 floodings at the same time than a single flooding does right now) first of all this whole flooding change is stupid but my idea about RTS CV torps as well.
      to the new flooding mechanics i have a very important question too, even though i know a fire on a ship can be quite devastating: if your ship is flooding your ships hull has to carry a shit ton of extra weight, literally, fires are devastating for sure, but even though it destroys everything onboard the ship up to impossible to use anymore everything a fire destroys can be repaired and replaced afterwards, if you are flooding and do nothing about it, it eventually will break your hulls integrity and you sink…

      one one side i can understand wargaming wants flooding beeing less one dimensional, on the other hand battleship players are stupid and they will stay beeing stupid and keep instantly repairing first and single fires, even if it’s not you farming him, you only caused him to insta dmg con but 20 seconds later he eats 2 torps and gets 2 floodings he doesn’t get punished for anything, he can eat 2x perma floodings, even if it costs him 20-30k HP but imagine you got 3 perma fires on him afterwards instead of him eating 2 torpedoes…
      atleast 60k HP gone from fires and HE alpha, probably even 70k HP…

    • +dennis.domenici
      its simple…flooding will be like fires

    • +cobrazax One thing that would solve a lot of issues is to give us more realistic control over the planes. This ignorant 2D representation where you fly along a single elevation with the only change when you are engaging which you still have no control over elevation is retarded at best! In the real world the planes did not suffer from having to fly a straight line and their only recourse was to weave left and right to avoid flack. Still, even if they pulled it out of their ass and gave me control of what elevation I wanted to fly at I would still hate this ignorant game mode. Sorry but Wargaming has winged me here and we can debate it till the cows come home but the bottom line is they took a really good game mode and destroyed it and not only that did a half assed job doing it!

  3. tfw pre-rework was more balanced… oh mai
    EDIT: PS not saying we didnt need some kind of rework but man, after playing the 2 betas and the final build… we might as well have just kept the RTS CV gameplay, add in an official tutorial, and limit it to 1 CV per team. Just saying.

  4. I do not have a kaga. so I do not know how survivable the planes are.
    but what I do if I know in advance that I will not get the chance to do a second attack.
    I make my Squadron smaller by dropping the bombs at a random place.

    so at end of the game I may have enough planes for a full Squadron and do a a proper attack, and try to win the game

  5. AA is broken on all ships except IJN DDs, and they still conplain about CVs being overpowered. People just don’t want to change their game style and rush the cap in the first minute of the game alone, and now they can be spotted because they are stupid they start asking for nerfs to a already underpowered class. The only good thing CVs have is spotting, but just spotting doesn’t give money or is fun.

    • @Winter Last Unless a DD has DEFAA, its AA is still very inefficient. I have a Kitakaze and although all its main guns are dual purposes, it barely shoots down any plane.

    • +VuHien2011 What? Kitakaze and Haragumo have very good AA, it’s a minotaur but can defend itself, Z-52 too, Daring AA is not as strong but is better then Shima’s and it also has smoke. Yueyang is a Gearing so it has good AA. Khaba can heal, has 50mm to defend against rockets. Only Shima could use some love, since it’s AA is that bad

    • well, that is people’s assumption. I tell the reality as I’m the owner of the Kitakaze. The only DD I have that seems to do anything to a plane is the Kidd as it has DEFAA.

    • +VuHien2011 Dude I tested on the PTS before they buffed the AA, and attacked many Kitakazes and Haragumos, you can’t just chill, they put a good damage and a lot of flak

    • I got killed with rockets in few passes. Even Flamu in a Max out AA Gearing got killed by rocket planes. I played CV myself to experience the opposite side and have no issue damaging DDs with rockets. I also have no issue spotting the entire enemy team at the beginning of the game.Nor even mentioning the stupid ability to have RPF for planes. Even WG agreed that all of that needs to be fixed and will fix it in

  6. How dare you go against the statusquo

  7. the only viable target for cv is either a completely isolated, low AA BB, or an isolated DD …with low AA
    it´s hilarious really

  8. They don’t want us to spot they obviously don’t want us to do damage what the hell are we supposed to do?

  9. Jacques Braga Szmelcynger Jr

    Thanks for showing that kind of game.

    The AA is high enought now: every ship got buff in the durability of the AA, base range increased for all ships, the default passive damage is higher than before plus the flak puffs to annoy even more.
    Just add all those things with sectors that increase the AA values and yeah.

    Whats the point of playing CVs now? The damage output is very limited from it was earlier, they keep nerfing the strike potential by increasing the aiming time, making it much more frustrating. In the end you can achieve the average damage easly but pulling a good damage game is almost impossible.

    Also, Kaga vs tier 10 isnt the only issue, their planes are fragile even to a tier 8 MM

  10. It will get even worse. With the next Hot Fix the air detection of all ships will be reduced by 20%
    That means Minotaur and Worcester will be plane spoted at a range of 7.3km ….

  11. watching 2 videos from farazelleth playing RTS Kaga on the chinese server and following up with a rework kaga is probably not the best idea i made in my life so far 😀

    i never really bothered with playing CV myself, i was never good enough in it to really have an impact for my team so i decided to leave it for now until i found the time and endurance to really concentrate and find the time to learn RTS CV gameplay properly, sadly the rework hit the live servers so yeah, that plan went down the drain…

    my first battle with the reworked CV system was with the lexington literally 2 hours before WG came up with the first cv rework hotfix and shut the servers down to update them.
    was pretty easy to learn, rockets obviously the easiest, bomb drops aren’t much harder and i needed 4-5 matches to get along with the torpedo bombers, only distracting factor was switching so quickly between all of them and i sometimes confused myself what i was flying at the moment and therefore i screwed up the lead i had to take and simply missed my drop but other than that it was pretty boring actually and in general, as a cv player i always found the RTS system always more interesting to play (WG UI meme not included)

    now, after watching 2 new RTS videos and coming back with the rework system in the third video hurts for some reason 😀

    also: 5:00 nice fireworks Aerroon 😀

  12. Sold all my premium cv already, just don’t enjoy them

  13. Just you wait. WG just announced a 20% reduction to spotting by air for *all ships.* Which includes those fun T9 and T10 AA ships. Have fun!

  14. Thats my normal game in a CV ^_^

    • Same. CVs are in a bad bad way at the moment. And to think WG did this rework to get more people playing them lolololol

  15. Keep in mind that at the moment every ship has been re-spec to AA build with the anticipation of CV spam. Thats why there are too much AA now. Wait a few months and things will return to normal.

    • ‘Normal’ being no CVs in the queue…which the rework is supposed to prevent…

      I’m not sure that’s what WG wants…

  16. Yeah, cuz in real life planes stick together like that easy enough for flak-gunners to bring down. They don’t break off at the first sign of anti- air whilst not on attack runs or something. <_<

  17. New update 0.8.3 carrier will be as blind as a bat that a lot of FUN AND ENGAGING right there

  18. Notser would say rework is fine, you just have to dodge. Each time he defends Wargaming, I laught so much…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.