Toxic Ridiculous MM - Time to review what are the best AA ships in the game?

[MBT808]

On 10/4/2024 at 11:19 AM, YouSatInGum said:

For instance, If your are facing a skip bombing type... you want a long range AA ship (usually Soviet) with as high as possible outer ring AA.

Nahkimov says no to all AA.

[hipcanuck]

58 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Nahkimov says no to all AA.

Russian CV's broke the current AA system. It wasnt great to begin with to be certain but it appears that Russian CV's were designed to take advantage of the flaws.

In RTS days, there were a few ships that could create no fly zones and since CV's had a limited amount of planes, good CV players would avoid them like the plague.

There are only 5 or 6 ships that are particularly deadly now, with another dozen (excluding other CV's...except Malta, it has T7 lvl AA lol) or so that will cause the CV player to weigh the cost effectiveness of an attack.

Things seem to be pretty quiet with the re-rework after the test a month or so ago. Should that get jammed down our throats you wont have to worry about CV's....nobody will play them.

An old pic of how I felt regarding the rework....

[MBT808]

1 minute ago, hipcanuck said:

Russian CV's broke the current AA system. It wasnt great to begin with to be certain but it appears that Russian CV's were designed to take advantage of the flaws.

In RTS days, there were a few ships that could create no fly zones and since CV's had a limited amount of planes, good CV players would avoid them like the plague.

There are only 5 or 6 ships that are particularly deadly now, with another dozen (excluding other CV's...except Malta, it has T7 lvl AA lol) or so that will cause the CV player to weigh the cost effectiveness of an attack.

Things seem to be pretty quiet with the re-rework after the test a month or so ago. Should that get jammed down our throats you wont have to worry about CV's....nobody will play them.

An old pic of how I felt regarding the rework....

One mistake with your pic there: the CV rework removed the hole entirely. WG just hammers the block till it breaks in two cause. I remember the RTS days well, I honestly think some of the concepts should come back.

For example, if CV planes continue to have this power level, then they should have limited hangars to make mistakes punishing. Or the the very least a significantly reduced restoration time. This way CVs would face similar degrees of punishes similar to surface ships.

Def AA having its dispersion effect back would make it a viable consumable again. But WG would never let Def AA be viable again(nor catapult fighter it seems).

[Musket22]

2 hours ago, MBT808 said:

... (nor catapult fighter it seems).

Had a match tonight where I launched the CAT fighter and was shocked to see it get 3 kills!

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

The worst thing about the CV rework, was removing the ability of a carrier to defend their team from incoming attack planes. The AA would be just fine in the game if there were actual fighters involved in protecting ships from red attack aircraft. Instead carriers just kind of poop out a fighter consumable and hope they are in the path of the reds. It is all so stupid.

So, what is your proposed solution?

Creating a combined pool of fighter consumables and a method for deploying them which is independent of where the rocket/bomb/torpedo planes are flying?
And creating a way for the fighters to move around via the autopilot method?

[MBT808]

14 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, what is your proposed solution?

Creating a combined pool of fighter consumables and a method for deploying them which is independent of where the rocket/bomb/torpedo planes are flying?
And creating a way for the fighters to move around via the autopilot method?

Crazy idea here: how about player controlled fighter squadrons?

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, MBT808 said:

16 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, what is your proposed solution?

Creating a combined pool of fighter consumables and a method for deploying them which is independent of where the rocket/bomb/torpedo planes are flying?
And creating a way for the fighters to move around via the autopilot method?

Crazy idea here: how about player controlled fighter squadrons?

We've been there and done that.
Even the RTS didn't have the CV player flying the fighters from a first-person-view.
There's still no good reason to do so, now.

1.  The CV player tells the CV crew what to do and they carry out orders, under the RTS CV system.
2.  Flying the fighters in a first-person-shooter point-of-view is a waste of time that could be used to perform an attack with the rocket/bomb/torpedo planes in the current "re-work" CV system.

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Crazy idea here: how about player controlled fighter squadrons?

Well, I don't know about that, but I think fighters would be more of a solution than trying to buff up ship based AA. I'm saying this because I don't like the game radically deviating from reality, and we know that AA never did and never could effectively prevent aerial attacks on capital ships.

[Wolfswetpaws]

13 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, I don't know about that, but I think fighters would be more of a solution than trying to buff up ship based AA. I'm saying this because I don't like the game radically deviating from reality, and we know that AA never did and never could effectively prevent aerial attacks on capital ships.

  
 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

On 10/4/2024 at 1:06 PM, BCGrog said:

I stole this pic off a post in Reddit.

Look at the right side lineup. Hildebrands, other hybrids, CV, Dutch cruisers and a destroyer.

This seems to be getting worse every day.

What are the best AA ships in the game?

Which ones work best optimized for AA builds?

Recommendations?

 

For randoms, a ship with as high as possible AA DPS with a range greater than 5km.

Flak puff number and strength are interesting, but will not hit any competent CV player.

Smoke can help, as does a good rudder shift.

But AA is 'balanced' in the CV captains favor...so...prepare to suffer.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

34 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, I don't know about that, but I think fighters would be more of a solution than trying to buff up ship based AA. I'm saying this because I don't like the game radically deviating from reality, and we know that AA never did and never could effectively prevent aerial attacks on capital ships.

I had hoped the Essex line would have made that possible...but WG screwed it up.

[ArIskandir]

11 hours ago, MBT808 said:

For example, if CV planes continue to have this power level, then they should have limited hangars to make mistakes punishing. Or the the very least a significantly reduced restoration time. This way CVs would face similar degrees of punishes similar to surface ships.

There's a really annoying design 'directive' that ruins any interesting, complex Game mechanic... Everything must be IDIOT-PROOF. CVs and Submarines were hindered the most by this, but it is a general theme. Guess why we can't have manual secondary batteries, manual AA or why we have so much Overmatch these days... Idiots must be protected as they are many and easily departed from their money.

[hipcanuck]

11 hours ago, MBT808 said:

For example, if CV planes continue to have this power level, then they should have limited hangars to make mistakes punishing. Or the the very least a significantly reduced restoration time. This way CVs would face similar degrees of punishes similar to surface ships.

Def AA having its dispersion effect back would make it a viable consumable again. But WG would never let Def AA be viable again(nor catapult fighter it seems).

CV's are barely more damage inducing than BB's for the most part, statistically most CV players have horrible damage output. Which is bad because out of all the ships, a CV usually plays the full match most of the time, unlike most ships. One stat I would love to see is damage per minute of game time, it would be interesting to see which ship class is actually the best.

Many have suggested bringing back RTS style play. Those people are unlikely to have been on the receiving end of a Midway dev strike, eliminating 100% of your T8 BB's hit points in one pass, while your AA shoots down 1 plane....less than 2 minutes into the game. Nor are they likely to have experienced the pain of a Ryujo racking up 3 devstrikes in the first 5 minutes. They have forgotten how nasty CV's were, how the match was entirely dependent on the skill of the CV player. The very good CV players were averaging 4+ kills a game and could kill nearly any bottom tier ship at will. I know because I was one of the 'good' CV players (not the very good tho lol), and honestly it just wasnt fun...it was more of a beat down.

If you think CV's should be deplaned easier, then WG needs to bring back destroyed main gun turrets. Then other ships can enjoy having their damage output permanently reduced. At the same time, I think WG should also eliminate permanently destroyed AA mounts and have them repair with Damage Control. AA from ships in smoke should suffer a massive nerf....If a CV cant effectively attack, AA shouldnt be effective either.

Def AA is a viable consumable. What it wont do is prevent an attack on you (unless you are in a T10 vs T8 planes), what it does is reduce the chances of the next attack. Take Kaga, 12 TB planes leave the CV, you drop 4 and send them back to CV. 8 planes continue on for an attack, target (or a ship close to it) pops def AA, 4 planes swoop into attack while the other 4 are nearly guaranteed to die, you might even lose 1 out of your attack unless you pop your heal. Even that wont guarantee 4 make it though. If the def AA isnt activated, you likely have 2 left to attack someone else. It becomes more complicated by the tier of the target. Get into a T10' med range def AA bubble and you will lose all of your planes within seconds.

Many think AA isnt effective...... most of those have probably never logged 1 minute of CV time. I say the word 'effective' is subjective, it works, just doesnt do what you want it to 🙂

[Wolfswetpaws]

31 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

If you think CV's should be deplaned easier, then WG needs to bring back destroyed main gun turrets. Then other ships can enjoy having their damage output permanently reduced. At the same time, I think WG should also eliminate permanently destroyed AA mounts and have them repair with Damage Control. AA from ships in smoke should suffer a massive nerf....If a CV cant effectively attack, AA shouldnt be effective either.

"If you think CV's should be deplaned easier, then WG needs to bring back destroyed main gun turrets. Then other ships can enjoy having their damage output permanently reduced."
Agree with this.  ^^^^

"At the same time, I think WG should also eliminate permanently destroyed AA mounts and have them repair with Damage Control."
Disagree with this.  ^^^^

"AA from ships in smoke should suffer a massive nerf....If a CV cant effectively attack, AA shouldnt be effective either."
Agree with this.  ^^^^

Also, as I mentioned somewhere else...
Plane regeneration does not give a CV infinite planes any more than Batteships reloading their guns every 30 seconds gives them unlimited ammunition.
There is a mathematical limit to the number of times a BB can fire her main-guns during a 20 minute battle.
Do the math.
Likewise, there is a mathematical limit to the number of planes a CV can "regenerate" or assemble from hangar-ceiling storage or have flown-in from off-map logistical storage capability (or whatever explanation you prefer).
Do the math.
While the result may vary according to the "regeneration time" of each CV, there is a limit.
It's merely more difficult for some people to understand when compared to the listed maximum planes of an RTS CV.

 🙂 
 

[Taylor3006]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, what is your proposed solution?

Creating a combined pool of fighter consumables and a method for deploying them which is independent of where the rocket/bomb/torpedo planes are flying?
And creating a way for the fighters to move around via the autopilot method?

Return to the original RTS system and removing the strafe mechanic like had been proposed by people who actually played CVs back in the day. The idea that the new system "fits better" with the game was probably the stupidest argument made to support the change.  It was clear that they wanted to remove a better player's ability to shut down a noob and they just made up the whole argument about it feeling better. They got Jingles to say that and it spread like a STD from there. Oddly enough they could alter the damage output of airborne weapons and introduce the aircraft regeneration mechanic to the old system if they wanted to and that would work fine IMHO even though I hate not being able to deplane a CV. If aircraft regeneration is a thing, surface ships should have the ability to regenerate their AA damage taken. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Return to the original RTS system and removing the strafe mechanic like had been proposed by people who actually played CVs back in the day. The idea that the new system "fits better" with the game was probably the stupidest argument made to support the change.  It was clear that they wanted to remove a better player's ability to shut down a noob and they just made up the whole argument about it feeling better. They got Jingles to say that and it spread like a STD from there. Oddly enough they could alter the damage output of airborne weapons and introduce the aircraft regeneration mechanic to the old system if they wanted to and that would work fine IMHO even though I hate not being able to deplane a CV. If aircraft regeneration is a thing, surface ships should have the ability to regenerate their AA damage taken. 

Look.  Straight-up question, because I don't think I clearly understand.
"What is the *strafing mechanic*"?

I was around during the RTS era and had worked hard to crawl my way to having the Zuiho and the Ryujo prior to the re-work happening.
I think the *strafing mechanic* may have been available to higher tier CV's?
I had fighters, bombers and torpedo planes to work with, as I remember things.

As things are now in the "re-work" rocket-planes peform an animation of firing their machine-guns before launching rockets.  But the machine-guns do no actual damage.
Strafing is something done to ground/surface targets. 
Plane-to-plane is called dogfighting or interception, as I understand it.
 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, hipcanuck said:

Get into a T10' med range def AA bubble and you will lose all of your planes within seconds.

This only happens if you hit flak.

All defAA is set to merely bring a ships effectiveness up to the point where they can deny a second attack.

It's a bit of a meme, a ship with defAA possible doesn't actually have good AA without defAA active.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

24 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

"What is the *strafing mechanic*"?

 

Examples of strafing from the RTS era.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

Examples of strafing from the RTS era.

 

She's sailing a Tier-10 Hakuryu.
Definitely a higher-tier thing.
Thanks for sharing the videos.

[Taylor3006]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Look.  Straight-up question, because I don't think I clearly understand.
"What is the *strafing mechanic*"?

I was around during the RTS era and had worked hard to crawl my way to having the Zuiho and the Ryujo prior to the re-work happening.
I think the *strafing mechanic* may have been available to higher tier CV's?
I had fighters, bombers and torpedo planes to work with, as I remember things.

As things are now in the "re-work" rocket-planes peform an animation of firing their machine-guns before launching rockets.  But the machine-guns do no actual damage.
Strafing is something done to ground/surface targets. 
Plane-to-plane is called dogfighting or interception, as I understand it.
 

Strafing was used to destroy aircraft in the RTS system. It was difficult to set up but quite effective. It was the mechanic that separated the good CV players from the average players or newbies. You could easily deplane the red CV if you were good at strafing. I think they eventually removed it for low tier CVs to help new players get started but it just put off the inevitable IMHO. Once they got to like tie 6, the noobs had to not only learn strafing, they had to protect themselves against it. Like I said, it was the mechanic that almost all CV players wanted to see removed. I personally rarely used it since it caused so much anger with the enemy carrier player UNLESS my team was in trouble. I focused on locking down red attack aircraft over friendly ships to deplane the red carrier. Just what I liked doing and it spread out the plane kills over my team.  You could also strafe your way out of a lockdown, but again, it was a skill that the better players were familiar with, not the newer players. 

Anyways it hardly matters, what we have is what we got. It does not matter to me what Wargaming does to the game any more. WoWS isn't even in the top 10 of games I spend my time or money playing. Just a dirty habit like smoking used to be for me. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Strafing was used to destroy aircraft in the RTS system. It was difficult to set up but quite effective. It was the mechanic that separated the good CV players from the average players or newbies. You could easily deplane the red CV if you were good at strafing. I think they eventually removed it for low tier CVs to help new players get started but it just put off the inevitable IMHO. Once they got to like tie 6, the noobs had to not only learn strafing, they had to protect themselves against it. Like I said, it was the mechanic that almost all CV players wanted to see removed. I personally rarely used it since it caused so much anger with the enemy carrier player UNLESS my team was in trouble. I focused on locking down red attack aircraft over friendly ships to deplane the red carrier. Just what I liked doing and it spread out the plane kills over my team.  You could also strafe your way out of a lockdown, but again, it was a skill that the better players were familiar with, not the newer players. 

Anyways it hardly matters, what we have is what we got. It does not matter to me what Wargaming does to the game any more. WoWS isn't even in the top 10 of games I spend my time or money playing. Just a dirty habit like smoking used to be for me. 

Apparently I had some limited access to it, but never thought of it as "strafing".
I simply thought of it as "engaging" or "dogfighting" with my fighter planes.
Sometimes they would get locked into a "furball" of a fight and couldn't get out.

Oh well. 
Useful to know (the history of the game), but we don't have a magic-wand to wave and make it come back.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

She's sailing a Tier-10 Hakuryu.
Definitely a higher-tier thing.
Thanks for sharing the videos.

It was available for tier 6 and above.

9 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Apparently I had some limited access to it, but never thought of it as "strafing".
I simply thought of it as "engaging" or "dogfighting" with my fighter planes.
Sometimes they would get locked into a "furball" of a fight and couldn't get out.

Oh well. 
Useful to know (the history of the game), but we don't have a magic-wand to wave and make it come back.

All RTS fighters at any tier could click onto an enemy squadron and if they got close enough, lock into a static furball that would force a win or loss.

Strafing was where you could tell your fighters to shoot a lot of ammunition in a single direction for a period of time to maximize gains...and you could strafe to get out of the static dogfight.

There were even some UI glitches that allowed counter-strafing and directional switches...but that got into wizardry that I wasn't capable of executing at the time.

The UI was extremely buggy and there were exploits galore.

[Taylor3006]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Apparently I had some limited access to it, but never thought of it as "strafing".
I simply thought of it as "engaging" or "dogfighting" with my fighter planes.
Sometimes they would get locked into a "furball" of a fight and couldn't get out.

Oh well. 
Useful to know (the history of the game), but we don't have a magic-wand to wave and make it come back.

Ehh it was called strafing in the game. When they first announced it I thought we would get the ability to strafe ships... 

Locking down fighters in a dogfight was a different thing altogether btw. Really good players could strafe their way out of a dogfight, I never tried to do that because I built into my aircraft skills for survivability and firepower. For me, playing carriers was all about controlling the air and shutting down the red cv. Once that was done, it was all about spotting and monitoring the reds movements so my team sink them. Most of my attacks on red ships were done with auto attacks just to tamp down the salt. Course I didn't play them that long in PvP because I bailed on that mode around tier 5 or 6. I did come back for a bit to play the 1/1/1 Bogue which was brilliant, but just to get 100 PvP matches with her. Kind of a personal goal I guess. 

[SureBridge]

7 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

If you think CV's should be deplaned easier, then WG needs to bring back destroyed main gun turrets

These never left. I've played a few clan battles where my US cruiser was down to just the rear turret courtesy of dueling with russian cruisers. It's a competitive sport. The US cruiser tries to burn the russian cruiser down before the russian cruiser breaks all of the US cruisers guns.

[ArIskandir]

6 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

All defAA is set to merely bring a ships effectiveness up to the point where they can deny a second attack.

It's a bit of a meme, a ship with defAA possible doesn't actually have good AA without defAA active.

Pan-asian and Dutch Cruisers with AA build and DFAA active and in a stern Chase are more than able to DPS wipe out a same tier CV squadron before it drops. I even was surprised by the T7 Pan Asían wiping out Kaga squadrons before they drop in a Match I played not too long ago.