Worth noting that weather systems don’t have to be universal. Out on the water rain squalls are quite localised hence could be used as cover. Tides and currents would make close manoeuvring inshore quite interesting. And as you say make the race in or out of cap zones more challenging. Even low cloud cover or completely overcast would add something, planes could pop out of it and climb back up to escape the AAA. Night or the battle advancing into dawn would add another aspect… Searchlights, radar and flashless powder could add something to the tech tree.
Having all three cap zones roughly equidistant seems like a wasted opportunity too. Reduces the effective use of mines, do we even have minesweepers in game?
Overall I think they have the vehicle models set up very well. It’s the environmental aspects and constraints that are needed to add some tactical spice. Otherwise it’s just bigger tanks with little or no terrain as cover.
Are Prinz Eugens that bad? I find their crew gets thinned out very easily and quickly. Also I find my Italian and British 203 blap them pretty often.
I do like the Prinz Eugen, but I dont find I perform better than my other ships.
5.7 is such a great tier
South Hampton, London and Norfolk wrecks
Abruzzi, Trento and Zara wreck
Graf Spee and Eugen/Hippa wrecks
Americans and Russians wreck in general
I have Furutaka but havent really used yet.
Ah, fair enough! Yeah, placing an island to block the line of sight could be pretty good start of map design. Although I think that might have a slight issue of you being focus fired upon as you leave the cover though… Unless the exit itself is covered by another island chain. Either way, one problem that might come up would be that the map would end up feeling kinda same-y. Already a good amount of existing maps just feel like mirror for both sides for balance reason and that removes the gameplay possibilities a bit (although I guess this problem also exist for Air Battles so it’s not a unique problem)
I might need a more visual graphic to comprehend all that was raised but from the basic overview of things, I largely still agree with what is being discussed although to avoid retreading old points, I still think that the players shouldn’t have direct control over the plane squadron, despite the strengths you have raised. I feel like having players at the control would enhance the fighters more than nerf them. Perhaps to make things balanced from the RTS view is the idea that you won’t know what kind of ship you are attacking beyond their class. You might see a battleship but that could either be something bristling with AA like some American thing or just a dreadnought with like 2 MG mounts. As for the SL loss, I don’t know if it should be that heavy for losing the squadron but I think losing the carrier itself could be a bit costly (or at least higher than their like-BR’d counterparts).
They are deadly if they decide to focus on you, at least in my experience. I have the Aoba and the Furutaka at that BR and find myself destroying their armor but otherwise not dealing enough damage at range. And damaging their ammo elevator when I try to hit their front ammo racks. But other than that, 5.7 is a decent enough tier, although the recent BR change that sends battleships down there is…less than favorable.
So, fighters, bombers and torpedo bombers. No recon planes… No option to just choose 2 types or just a single type of planes?
No multi-role capability, or mounting lighter bombs on fighters? Or swapping torpedoes for bombs?
It could be an interesting equipment management game of sorts - torpedo attacks are the safest kind of attacks for pilots, at least at the limits of torpedo range. Rockets being the the compromise option, and bombs being the most risky.
With CVs limited armament stocks, if similar mechanics are going to be used on them, as we see now on other ships with secondary armament like depth charges and torpedoes, maybe there can be funny situations where carrier runs out of specific kinds of ammo mid-battle. And thus, basically it’s squadrons now have only the strafing option…
Seems a bit weak… For a proper carrier.
I imagine the fellow wingmates circling around this dive bomber above it, also subject to AAA fire…
Oh, it goes down! Switching to another plane… Another one! Oh boy, one wingmate that was circling around was shot! The last bomber in a squadron… Bomb dropped! Miss! Just a few shrapnel hit it. Then shot down on the way to the carrier…
Frankly, I’m more curious of early rank/low BR CVs - that being experimental/escort/light carriers and seaplane tenders, as big boys would be… looking like a joke, with that semi-single plane control. With low rank/BR, this single plane control may make a bit more sense, as these are early carriers, intended to escort convoys and scout around, rather than participate in a proper combat operations.
If the map is large enough to give players options how to go around the island or which side to choose and allows them to at very least dodge the shells I think it is fine. Afterall this would also be present in the much larger maps at the point where the player reaches the firing range.
Yes the mirror maps are a bit dull but I would say it is still better then some maps where one side has obviously much better spawns.
But I think with larger size of the maps they can be made unique and different with different setups and island layouts which ultimately achieve same cover.
@Norris_Aznable@Blogaugis As for the CV discussion I replied in detail in the Aircraft Carrier topic which is better suited for the in depth discussion about them.
Maybe improve RP? I mean an 8 kill game in my Fuso with Premium only got me 10k rp while trying to grind a 380k rp ship… it’s no wonder some people don’t play. they are asking so much rp for so little rewards.
Fair enough, looking it up it seems like most ships you mention, including the Eugen, can shoot at a rate of 5 rounds per minute. For some reason I always feel like they can lob the shells at double that rate whenever I see them. Probably cause there’s a horde of them owned by scripters on that particular swathe of the map.
And it’s probably due to this same script-density that you’d find them downtiered where they do absolutely slap destroyers.
Yeah this is true as well, the RP gain could be substantially boosted to match the demands. I’m currently stuck at 6.0 and although I’m by far not doing so good (getting uptiered to battleships I can’t even pen… yay…), trying to inch by so I can spade stuff and move on is taking so long, I just chose to avoid it altogether.
And yep…wish they give us more details on their vision so we can offer them feedback before they change everything for the better or worse, but in a way I guess this is par for the course.
They are when their 203mm guns have a15sec reload while my 200mm guns have an 18 sec reload. I have only even gotten 2 ammo racks on them even after spending countless rounds focusing on their ammo. I have not found a good way of taking them out yet. I try SAP but it doesnt do enough damage fast enough and AP only works if you can somehow ammo rack them. Of course, HE wont do jack to them.
I probably doesnt help me that I dont know how exactly spotting works in naval. I say this because I will be behind an island that I cant even fire over and the enemy ships are behind an island yet they will pin point my location.
Im guessing you are in an early American Heavy Cruiser? (Pensacola, Portland or Northhampton)
I Havent spent any time in them because I find the Light Cruisers deadlier (So I have no idea how to use them, as in make up for their weaknesses). But I have played against them alot and American Heavy Cruisers have Huge weakspots that detonate them so easily. Any of those Heavy Cruisers Up to and including the De Moine are favourite targets for me to blap (in any cruiser).
Cant say I feel sorry for those ships with all the Moffits and Helenas that have been around forever :P (Although I like moffits cos they detonate good :P)
IMO it is the idiot manouvering in spawn that is the issue - mostly ships can’t actually hit each other much at spawn-spawn ranges.
I see these as advantages - IMO there is no sensible gameplay option trying to incorporate these 2 into WW1-WW2 naval surface fleet gameplay.
Trivial - in that every game always needs UI improvement! :)
IMO neither are true - shells do damage, and the game is already so far removed from reality that differences between AP and HE are arbitrary - pick whichever you think is best.
And I have no trouble with using light bombers at appropriate BRs - they are perfectly capable of sinking vessels on their own.
The bots used to pad out numbers are not a problem - indeed they are a feature that helps with SL gain as noted being a Pro!
Players botting O… well TBH hardly ever see any that I can recognize, and few that I think might be doing so always seem to be an easy target too
Just putting these in cons just because I know people are highly anticipating them/the power creep. I also would be perfectly happy if these two don’t get included.
I don’t think they are as arbitrary as it seems. HE’s effectiveness for me kind of ends with destroyers. Unlike WoWs implementation (and I guess US purpose-made HEs) they aren’t exactly easy fire-starters. They often just splash harmlessly on the armor, and with the update moving the crew further behind ammo belts, this just makes the kill that much harder. Recent attempts at playing the Akizuki, the ship I used to be able to dominate in have resulted in hardly more damage than continually breaking their turret/torpedo launchers of Moffetts. And this especially becomes a problem higher up in BR (although there the AP also don’t do much because I keep getting uptiered to battleships, but when faced with lower tier things, AP very much is a superior shell)
Yeah, which is why I suggest the wingman feature to start at like 5.0. At that point, people either got good enough crew points to timely repair the damage (unless they are preoccupied by an ongoing damage control), or got the AA suite to fill the sky with lead.
Yeah I mean player bots, not the Gaijin matchmaker padding bots. They are exceedingly common the higher you go. More often than not the Frank Knox, Helena, Des Moines, Prinz Eugens and other premiums you see are bots. They might be an easy target but they ruin the playing experience, especially if they just chose to sit still at the back of the map/near caps.
oohhhh the Kako (I couldnt remember anyone having 200mm guns, I just asumed typo). Yeah full up tiers can be rough. On the upside the Kako at its own tier or as top dog is pretty godlike. I Havent played it for a while, but I used to love taking this thing out
Yeah I remember when its HE shells actually did some damage and thanks to rof it was pretty good but now it’s almost like you do no damage to DDs. It’s worse on U.S DDs where damage is so poor I don’t even bother to go after them.
The 127mm HE is better but even that feels worse then what it used to be. HE needs to be refined but not made broken neither like it use to be.
Another thing is im not too knowledgeable on it but is U.S anti fragmentation armor correct? I feel like it neglects waaaay too much of the HE damage but idk if thats how it should be.
One way to improve things very quickly would simply be to limit the amount of ammo carried. A Moffat seems to have enough for 20 minutes worth of max rate firing, games don’t always last that long. Could also be a balancing mechanism for up / down tiers. If you’re a full BR down then you start with more ammo. Other than armour penetration I’m not sure whether shells do more damage at shorter range? Is the speed of the projectile calculated, as in long range equates to terminal velocity which should be somewhere around 350m/s.
People short on ammo would have to start looking for torping opportunities or cap.
Another would be gun temperature as is already in place with aircraft. A USN guncrew managed to get 26 rounds through a 5"/38 in a minute in a ROF contest, though the gun blew up killing most of them. Maybe link gun temperature to accuracy? Hot barrel expands hence a wider spread? Not sure whether that would be true in real life but a possible mechanism. Barrel life possibly? Large calibre weapons only had 600 EFCs before needing to be replaced. Or make the ammo cost progressively more depending upon how much is used across all the games… Supply and demand - if everyone is firing nothing but 5" then the price of it goes up.
Another idea, adding the Casimir effect. If you park a ship parallel to land then the waves are damped on the landward side which results in it moving towards the land. Make the ship roll as the keel hits, so the guns can’t fire over the land and you’d probably have an effective anti island squatting measure. Not quite sure of the physics but make it more pronounced for longer ships… Wouldn’t have to be a big effect, just enough to make it awkward for someone who’s been parked for a minute or two.
Getting rid of targeting through mountains and hills would be good too. Maybe unless someone was spotting for you, or is that what the radio crew skill currently does?
Just as a mind game if you had a completely Ocean map with no land what would be the best way to win? Bring nothing but BBs obviously and then focus fire. So how would you make it such that other vessels were viable on such a map? Well you could have some who were specialists in reporting the fall of shot. DDs most likely ( though cruisers traditional role was scouting). Would tracer even be visible once it’s gone beyond a certain part of it’s parabola at long range? I know the Japanese used to add marker dye to their shells so that each ship’s shot could be more visible on the water. Maybe you only have the damage cam if a team mate has eyes on and a sufficiently high scouting / radio / reporting skill? Bit like the mechanism in ground battles where recon units could report locations. Currently a chap on the bridge or eagles nest tells me that my salvo was a near miss or exactly where it hit the target. Despite there being many thousands of tonnes of granite between his eyes and the fall of shot. Maybe a role for aircraft here too, rather than dying bravely to an ungodly hail of AAA. The Fairey Fulmar’s observer specialised in such, along with the Walrus etc.
Is draught a thing? Certainly should be as it would determine how close to the shore your ship could and should get. Any reason why maps can’t have channels which only smaller craft can get through, or where deeper draught ships would be forced to take the middle of the channel?
Fundamentally the different classes of ships need roles, ideally their real world ones or else a DD is just a far worse BB that is only a silver lion pinata. Wows does get around this by making DDs invisible beyond a certain range ( 5km!) and less vulnerable to large calibre fire via not having a citadel to hit. Which is a bit naff but at least roles are enforced.
Yes it is but Gaijin has completly given up on modeling seabed so on most maps the depth immediately goes to depth of 30 or so metres so not even BBs have problems manuvering between the islands.
IMO this is because most maps need to acomdate all types of ships because of the capture zones. It already is annoying enough to need to slowly manuever between islands to get to some of the capture points.
If we would get maps where the objectives would be clearly different for different types of ships than it would make lot of sence but not now. IMO
Yes that is what the current radio crew skill does. Essentially as long as some of your teamates has enemy in their line of sight and are close enough you can target that enemy regardless your LOS. That is also why the targeting through the islands is sometimes possible.
I would say that this is outright impossible as of now. They aren´t even able to have waves have different heights in one map. So this is completly impossible as of now.
There might be way how to make 2 different wave height on one map but I am not sure if that would be feasible and it would extemly janky solution.
For better water simulation they would need to completly rework how the water simulation works in the game.
And I would say that Casmir affect is largely unnecesary since in 99% of the cases where someone can shoot you from behind of the island you can shoot them back and more easily. If threre aren´t some spotting issues as said above. But it would be nice to see such small details in the game.
I don´t like this idea since I really don´t think that it would solve the problem. Yes it might limit USN DDs overall damage output across whole match but ultimately wont fix anything because noone will care about the limit if they are in middle of the fight and would ultimately lead to just more frustrating gameplay when the ammo runs out. Especially when most torpedoes are basically useless right now.
The torpedoes right now are just RNG weapon most of the time which is extremly unreliable as long as you dont send them into spawn and even them it is just RNG. Same goes applies to the hot barrel mechanic which would just increse RNG.
The best thing how to nerf US DDs is to make longer range maps. Practically all USN DDs have atrocious balistics and muzzle velocity compared to most other DDs so if the maps were bigger the other nation DDs would have space to exploit their better balistics. Without this there is no way how to properly nerf US DDs without resorting to some unrealistic and arbitrary nerfs.
And ideally add different objectives that don´t rely only on pure anti ship effectiveness.
