guided bombs facing ww2 ships is wrong
So, guided missile and AK230 AA Bot facing ww2 plane is fine in naval right?
not a fan of 60s radar AA on coastal ships seeing something as early as a beaufighter no, however I do think coastal should be segregated from bluewater fleets in battle
But in Soviet tech-tree, there indeed a missile destroyer in it. For the radar, AA bots not depends on radar and it can easily shoot down a jet plane in RB mode.
AI controlled AI is getting nerfed next update to give planes a chance to have any use at all in game.
and the soviet tree having tech others are decades behind in is not a surprise
Everyone in here says Bot’s AA is getting nerfed in next update, but is here someone test on it or official announcement on it? That s a real problem.
And I mean, not in AB, we need know about RB.
no clue for arcade, myself and everyone i know that plays naval are RB players. Gaijin specifically told us in a devblog that they are reducing AI targeting accuracy so CAS can start to break the stalemates
I see 2 major issues with guided bombs
-
Not everyone has an appropraite guided bomb carrier for the BR range. Britain for example, wouldnt have one till 10.3. It could be lowered, but would be waaaay… too strong. So its probably best that these not be added to naval until all can have them with the exception being things like the Fritz-X that can be countered reasoanbly easily.
-
Do we really want orbital GBUs that cannot be defended against even by turning hard?
Im personally more annoyed by the Buc S1 being moved up. It did not have any guided weapons and unlike the Buc S2. Isnt all that fast nor is its bomb load actually all that unreasonable.
But for Iowa, we all know how worst the American BB is. I really think Gaijin should keep all original BR when using jet planes in naval.
And the point is, Gaijin should give every country a chance to revenge, not just lose 3 BB and shoot down by AA bots then quit.
F-117 would be insane in naval. You dont need it.
Unless you are okay with Britain getting the Jaguar or Buc S2B.
Or the Soviets getting the Su-25
etc etc
and whilst ive not yet fought a Soyuz in the Vanguard. I do think there is a fair amount of Hyperbole going on with her surviviability.
@HK_Reporter How is Soyuz looking on the survivability side of things?
1 Like
I don’t think soviet should get SU25, but okay in British, they only have old 381 but with new ammo in next updates.
But in test server’s data, obviously Soyuz can beat all country’s top tier BB and without losing their own ship. And a point is, I think you maybe have met them, the _ HMS _ squadron, a whole squadron only play OP ships and using glitch to get more their teammates in one match to keep K/D. By the way, they only back away from war zone to keep longest range. When some one like them play 4 or more Soyuz in one match, that’s the real disaster. And that’s why I think Gaijin should give the players who killed by them a chance to revenge.
Maybe we have to check other ships as they are not fully worked.
For Soyuz… well bow-in or angled Soyuz would be massive disaster, but with fully showing side its just bigger Kronshtadt. Of course I know it still means Soyuz is better than other at survivability as the only two ship that is not punished by showing side is Vanguard and Richelieu(or maybe include Iowa if fully worked), but on random battle it would be different per situation.
2 Likes
Agree, I always think Souyz is just a larger Roma class, but in test server, Gaijin gave themselves too much : (
Roma is underperfoming severely in dev server. That’s why seems like Soyuz is too much.
Iowa and Soyuz could be in better status. Reason why Gaijin decided to not is maybe because that would create too much gap with other nations.