With all the tanky/fast planes/tact squads running around, effectively making AA as useless as it can get even in a blob, why are people still think CVs are weak and light cruiser shouldn't get rts levels of AA to offset their overall fragility?

[DoctorDank]

Basically title, light cruisers have no armour, no range, no effective dmg (garbage pen and bbs having ways to avoid being set on fire/take massively reduced fire dmg), AA was the one thing they had going for them, but with more and more CVs being able to hard counter their AA with virtually 0 effort, not to mention the omnipresent plane spotting combined with their fragility, they are basically unplayable if you dont have a good spawn or a smoke bot division, since CVs ignore positioning and all

At this point, smoke is a better "AA" than austin AA on something that can jumpscare AA the CV since the CV has to blind drop the smoker which gives the smoker a chance to dodge it instead of having a crapton of AA mitigating mechanics that makes the first drop impossible to kill, and if the first drop cannot be stopped, then the CV can keep coming after that god tier AA cruiser over and over again, especially with tact squads making plane losses literally meaningless, and they also hit like a truck no matter how you position because those tact squads can set fires and take at least 5k out of your heatlh, when more often than not you are already dealing with cv spotting and/or having no heal at all

sit at the back with your bb blob? you cant shoot at anything unless you run spotter/range mod. leave your blob so you can play the damn game? get hyper focused because you have shit range and needing to get close to shoot at things

yes i get light cruisers have a high skill floor, but they shouldnt have a skill floor so high that it exceeds their skill ceiling while still having a hard counter that that is omnipresent in every game that is basically an instant loss if they decide to go after you

light cruisers are supposed to be decked out with aa and counter planes, not get countered by them with 0 effort due to flak being completely useless

if cv planes can always land the first strike against light cruisers with the maximum amount of aa available against it, then light cruiser aa should automatically instant kill cv squads no matter the hp, or make them immune to cv spotting and cv damage, since cvs are already effectively immune to aa, with flak being as useless as it, only serving as an idiot tax at best, or actively detrimental at worst

a tier 8 light cruiser should be able to shred t8 cv planes with dfaa active, not get mauled by it despite dfaa being active while not risking your hull and still having fast regenerating planes because tact squads are bullshit and make aa truly useless

 

Edited November 24 by DoctorDank

[Admiral_Karasu]

@DoctorDank Welcome aboard!

[Kynami]

Yorktown isn't really a terribly strong carrier against light cruisers. The most dangerous squadron to you as a light cruiser is the dive bomber tactical squadron. The attack tactical squadron with the Tiny Tims has a ludicrously long arming time and just a bit of waggle and movement should make them nearly useless against you. And as for the torpedo bombers, that is when you flip on the DFAA and tax their planes. Because if they lose the torpedo bombers they are suddenly faced with twiddling their thumbs waiting for tactical squadrons to recover. And if you end up eating just a singular torpedo hit... it is only just over 3,000 damage.

The strongest thing they can do against you is spotting outside of that one squadron of dive bombers. I'd be more forgiving if you were complaining about certain carriers with skip bombers, especially Russian ones. Since those actively do just ignore your defenses and hit hard at the same time when used by a skilled CV player. The actually strong CV in the USN support line is the Essex because it actually replaces the nerf foam torpedoes with something considerably stronger. But the same rule of only bothering to DFAA the torpedo bombers applies to it as well.

[pepe_trueno]

The game really needs the +40% AA range slot 3 mod back.

The game also need  a new mod or skill that let us restore destroyed AA / secondary mounts over time, All it takes is 1 HE spammer to severely reduce your AA output for the rest of the match.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

OP:

You show us a score for a light cruiser match (AL Montpelier, basically a Cleveland) in which you came in top of your winning team by over a hundred base XP despite not surviving the entire match, and in doing so shot down more aircraft than anyone else on your team. 

That's a self-defeating argument if I ever saw one.

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

light cruisers have no armour, no range, no effective dmg

Yet you're still first in a winning team.

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

sit at the back with your bb blob? you cant shoot at anything unless you

Unless you move forward with your blob, which even the co-op bots are capable of doing. 

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

i get light cruisers have a high skill floor, but they shouldnt have a skill floor so high that it exceeds their skill ceiling

Yet you still came in top of a winning team.

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

a hard counter that that is omnipresent in every game

I have trouble believing this.

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

basically an instant loss if they decide to go after you

Yet you still came in top of a winning team.

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

since cvs are already effectively immune to aa,

Yet you still shot down more aircraft than anyone else in your team.

You will, however, be pleased to know that WG is currently digesting the results of a trial rework designed to mitigate some of your pain points. I hope you took part in that. I did.

Edited November 24 by HogHammer
Unnecessary comment, belittling (single comment deleted)

[Itwastuesday]

Because they're favouring the carrier experience over surface ship experience, and their system is garbage. If AA works, the CV experience is pretty bad because it can't do anything to a degree no other ship suffers from. If it's like now, the surface ship experience is bad. There's no real middle ground.

[Wolfswetpaws]

15 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

Basically title, light cruisers have no armour, no range, no effective dmg (garbage pen and bbs having ways to avoid being set on fire/take massively reduced fire dmg), AA was the one thing they had going for them, but with more and more CVs being able to hard counter their AA with virtually 0 effort, not to mention the omnipresent plane spotting combined with their fragility, they are basically unplayable if you dont have a good spawn or a smoke bot division, since CVs ignore positioning and all

At this point, smoke is a better "AA" than austin AA on something that can jumpscare AA the CV since the CV has to blind drop the smoker which gives the smoker a chance to dodge it instead of having a crapton of AA mitigating mechanics that makes the first drop impossible to kill, and if the first drop cannot be stopped, then the CV can keep coming after that god tier AA cruiser over and over again, especially with tact squads making plane losses literally meaningless, and they also hit like a truck no matter how you position because those tact squads can set fires and take at least 5k out of your heatlh, when more often than not you are already dealing with cv spotting and/or having no heal at all

sit at the back with your bb blob? you cant shoot at anything unless you run spotter/range mod. leave your blob so you can play the damn game? get hyper focused because you have shit range and needing to get close to shoot at things

yes i get light cruisers have a high skill floor, but they shouldnt have a skill floor so high that it exceeds their skill ceiling while still having a hard counter that that is omnipresent in every game that is basically an instant loss if they decide to go after you

light cruisers are supposed to be decked out with aa and counter planes, not get countered by them with 0 effort due to flak being completely useless

if cv planes can always land the first strike against light cruisers with the maximum amount of aa available against it, then light cruiser aa should automatically instant kill cv squads no matter the hp, or make them immune to cv spotting and cv damage, since cvs are already effectively immune to aa, with flak being as useless as it, only serving as an idiot tax at best, or actively detrimental at worst

a tier 8 light cruiser should be able to shred t8 cv planes with dfaa active, not get mauled by it despite dfaa being active while not risking your hull and still having fast regenerating planes because tact squads are bullshit and make aa truly useless

 

In-game Anti-aircraft fire is more effective than the real-life Anti-aircraft fire in the Pacific theater of WW-II.

After you play CV's to Tier-10, I'll be curious to read your comparisons between CL's and CV's.

By the way, the Azur Lane Montepelier seems to be a fun ship.  Congrats.
I have Commander A.L. Montpelier, but don't have her ship in my Port.

Edit:  Oops.  I do have the ship A.L. Montpelier in my Port.  Must have welcomed her during the last collaboration?

Edited November 24 by Wolfswetpaws

[Admiral_Karasu]

Basically, we could argue that the AA should not work, it should just not work a little better... or is that worse? Anyway, I'm sure you guys get what I'm trying to say. The other half of the equation is that the CV's can't effectively be 'deplaned'. What's happened is that WG adjusted both sides of the equation to favor the CV's. In my opinion, that's yet one more disastrous balancing decision more, or should we call it an unbalancing decision. Either the AA needs to be buffed across board (to a reasonable degree), or we need to have CV's that can be deplaned, not instantly, but over the course of the battle.

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

You show us a score for a light cruiser match (AL Montpelier, basically a Cleveland) in which you came in top of your winning team by over a hundred base XP despite not surviving the entire match, and in doing so shot down more aircraft than anyone else on your team, yet you still have the nerve to come here and complain about how impotent light cruisers are?

 

Prob died to the Cv. Actually, about that was my first ever post on the old forums; literally  "What the ..... is this sh....??".  W/o the dots  that is....

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yet you're still first in a winning team.

Coz he shot down most planes. 

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Unless you move forward with your blob, which even the co-op bots are capable of doing. 

Whenever I see this argument I just 

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yet you still came in top of a winning team.

Which ..... validates his point?

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yet you still shot down more aircraft than anyone else in your team.

And that should be counted as an achievement? Given the tiers and the ship? Ummm.....

 

4 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I've never seen someone so effectively contradict themselves by their own performance. It speaks for itself. 

I don't see any of that. Maybe .... we look at different posts?

[Wolfswetpaws]

Quote

Antiaircraft Action Summary · World War II
October 1945
Headquarters of the Commander in Chief
UNITED STATES FLEET
UNITED STATES FLEET HEADQUARTERS OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF NAVY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.  ...

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

Edited to add:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hacf27/how_effective_were_antiaircraft_weapons_in_world/?rdt=50494  

 

Edited November 24 by Wolfswetpaws

[Admiral_Karasu]

A 'from a certain point of view' kind of situation is it?

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

A 'from a certain point of view' kind of situation is it?

As @Andrewbassg has been fond of saying, on occasion, "facts are pesky and persistent".  

While perspective may be important, the "bias" or "un-met expectations" of an observer may also be a factor when they give their side of the story.  😉 

[Andrewbassg]

22 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As @Andrewbassg has been fond of saying, on occasion, "facts are pesky and persistent".  

While perspective may be important, the "bias" or "un-met expectations" of an observer may also be a factor when they give their side of the story.  😉 

Tbh it is/was more about the difficulties having an open and productive discussion, or argumentation, while ignoring facts.I mean .... Its impossible to prove something like "Is the Earth a geoid?" while the other party claims its flat. To be clear, the example is strictly about the difficulty of having a discussion about it, not an actual parallel.

That being said, opinions (and stated as such) are in a completely different realm and I never tried to enforce an opinion. For example I hold  the opinion that Cv's are VERY badly implemented and that opinion is based on facts. However that is an opinion nevertheless and I never gonna try to "enforce" it.

 

As for ....

28 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

Edited to add:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hacf27/how_effective_were_antiaircraft_weapons_in_world/?rdt=50494  

 

...I would caution a bit about drawing parallels with history, coz ...

"The "kills" listed in the foregoing table occurred within sight of the ships being attacked. The 5,500 planes not shot down immediately were so harassed by antiaircraft gunfire that comparatively few were able to carry out their missions successfully." 

And that number refers to the deterrent effect of the AA, which isn't implemented in Wows. Also...

Period:		Assessed kills
	Pearl Harbor	26
	First half 1942	56
	Second half 1942	146
	First half 1943	72
	Second half 1943	300
	First half 1944	171
	Second half 1944	310
	First half 1945	964
	July and August 1945	11
	Total	2,056
	Armed Guard total	200
	Grand total	2,256

 

.....that 3 fold spike is related to the deployment of the VT fuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Deployment

Which also isn't modelled in Wows.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The other half of the equation is that the CV's can't effectively be 'deplaned'.

If the loss rate exceeds the regeneration rate, they can be deplaned - or to be exact, reduced to the point where you are attacking with so few aircraft that your impact is negligible. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Tbh it is/was more about the difficulties having an open and productive discussion, or argumentation, while ignoring facts.I mean .... Its impossible to prove something like "Is the Earth a geoid?" while the other party claims its flat. To be clear, the example is strictly about the difficulty of having a discussion about it, not an actual parallel.

That being said, opinions (and stated as such) are in a completely different realm and I never tried to enforce an opinion. For example I hold  the opinion that Cv's are VERY badly implemented and that opinion is based on facts. However that is an opinion nevertheless and I never gonna try to "enforce" it.

 

As for ....

...I would caution a bit about drawing parallels with history, coz ...

"The "kills" listed in the foregoing table occurred within sight of the ships being attacked. The 5,500 planes not shot down immediately were so harassed by antiaircraft gunfire that comparatively few were able to carry out their missions successfully." 

And that number refers to the deterrent effect of the AA, which isn't implemented in Wows. Also...

Period:		Assessed kills
	Pearl Harbor	26
	First half 1942	56
	Second half 1942	146
	First half 1943	72
	Second half 1943	300
	First half 1944	171
	Second half 1944	310
	First half 1945	964
	July and August 1945	11
	Total	2,056
	Armed Guard total	200
	Grand total	2,256

 

.....that 3 fold spike is related to the deployment of the VT fuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Deployment

Which also isn't modelled in Wows.

Nice post.
All of that ^^^^ being said, the original post of this topic indicated 27 planes shot-down. 
Which is a significant percentage of all planes shot-down per year in any year that one chooses from the WW-II naval AA statistics that your post cited.  🙂 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Another thing that isn't modelled in WoWS is fuel consumption.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

Another thing that isn't modelled in WoWS is fuel consumption.

Ammunition consumption is not modeled, either.  DD's never run out of torpedoes to reload with.
Can't force a ship to cease movement because it consumed all its fuel after a flood caused a fuel leak.  😉 

RTS CV's had fighters with limited ammo.
The CV re-work ended that nice bit of logistical realism.

As for airplane fuel consumption?
Planes could fly for HOURS.  The WOWs battles last 20 minutes, at most.
Even with a 3 to 1 time compression, that would mean a 20 minute battle consumes 60 minutes of "real time". 
And the planes would not be running out of fuel, unless they were damaged and leaking fuel was modeled (which would also force WOWs to model self-sealing fuel tanks which were used on most WW-II combat aircraft).

World of Warships development decisions are responsible.
They, in my opinion, wanted to simplify the game enough for play by pre-teenagers, and make the game realism soft enough to prevent a Bismarck sailing in circles for the rest of a battle because of one lucky torpedo hit.  Instead, a player can use their Damage Control consumable to fix the rudder.

[Andrewbassg]

10 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

despite dfaa being active

AA simply cannot be properly implemented, even if were a desire to do so,  till Cv's can see +/-2 tiers. And .... actually there is zero desire on Wedgie's part.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

If the loss rate exceeds the regeneration rate, they can be deplaned - or to be exact, reduced to the point where you are attacking with so few aircraft that your impact is negligible. 

 

Well ...... shooting down planes in Wows is still meaningless, in terms of "inflicted pain", till Cv;s have factories on board. And the most impact Cv's have is by their spotting, which can be done even with a single plane.

The truly sad state of Cv implementation is duly reflected in the score board, namely  by the planes shot down by the Cv's themselves. 

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

from the WW-II naval AA statistics that your post cited.  🙂

I would say that's a far more interesting statistic, with the explanations given. Btw these/those are from your post. 

Ammunition Performance

Huge quantities of ammunition were fired at enemy aircraft during the war. Much of it was fired at targets well out of range, and as the enemy threat from the air increased the rounds required to destroy a plane increased sharply for virtually every size of ammunition.

The following tables show expenditures, planes destroyed by ammunition types, and rounds per bird.

	5" Com.	5" VT	3"/50	40 mm.	1".1	20 mm.	.50 cal.	.30 cal.
Totals for 1942
Rounds	15,110		3,849	5,576	57,131	155,603	359,817	56,950
Kills	60		21	2	38	86	38	1
R.P.B.	252		183	2,788	1,503	1,809	9,496	56,950
Totals for 1943
Rounds	27,242	9,128	7,289	114,889	10,727	697,955	88,178	20,511
Kills	46	61	30	81	4	116	9	1
R.P.B.	508	155	243	1,320	2,682	6,017	9,798	20,511
Totals for 1944
Rounds	72,902	32,826	7,540	432,680	8,830	1,103,028	118,211	21,051
Kills	63	78	6	183		118	4
R.P.B.	1,157	421	1,257	2,364		9,348	29,552
Totals for 1945
Rounds	108,516	75,961	10,936	718,699	9,308	1,308,370	163,630	13,994
Kills	173	207.5	30.5	476.5	2.5	297.5	14.5	2
R.P.B.	627	366	359	1,508	3,723	4,398	11,285	6,997

Totals for War

	Rounds	Kills	R.P.B.
5" Com	223,770	342.0	(15%)	654
5" VT	117,915	346.5	(15%)	340
3"/50	29,614	87.5	(4%)	338
40 mm	1,271,844	742.5	(33%)	1,713
1".1	85,996	44.5	(2%)	1,932
20 mm.	3,264,956	617.5	(28%)	5,287
.50-cal	729,836	65.5	(3%)	11,143
.30-cal	112,506	4.0		28,127

--6--

Rounds per bird, except for 1945, increased for all types of weapons as the war progressed. This was the result of the following factors:

1. Increase in the number of weapons installed on all ships.

2. Increase in the number of ships firing at each target as operations increased in size.

3. Increase in the number of night attacks, in which fire control was less accurate.

4. Increase in speed, maneuverability and armor of enemy planes.

5. Adoption of doctrine calling for opening fire at extreme range.

6. Lack of sufficient opportunity for training.

During the 8 months of 1945, when approximately half of the war's kills were made, rounds per bird dropped off. Except for those attacking the fast carrier force, many enemy planes were outmoded types, comparatively slow and operated by unskilled pilots. Gunners had improved in accuracy as a result of increased experience in action and increased training.

The 40 mm. developed into the most effective weapon in the fleet. The 20 mm., which was the most important weapon during the first 2 years of the war, was passed by both the 5-inch and 40 mm. in the percentage of planes knocked down during 1944 and 1945.

Five-inch guns destroyed 30 percent of all "sures" during the war. VT-fuzed projectiles, used in only 35 percent of 5-inch rounds, were responsible for 50 percent of 5-inch kills.

The indicated performance of the 3"/50, which boasts a lower R. P. B. than even the 5-inch VT, is considered a statistical casualty as a result of poor reporting by ships.

The 6"/47, lacking an AA. computer and VT fuzes, was used but rarely against aircraft. It was responsible for two "kills." Both a computer and VT fuzes have been developed for this weapon.

Still keep in mind that these are only estimated, coz sure as hell they didn't count the bullet holes 🙂 

57 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Another thing that isn't modelled in WoWS is fuel consumption.

 

49 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As for airplane fuel consumption?

Aaactually ...... planes can fly for 3 mins after the Cv is gone, so that's the fuel consumption modelling 🙂. 

Edited November 24 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

22 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Aaactually ...... planes can fly for 3 mins after the Cv is gone, so that's the fuel consumption modelling 🙂. 

Good of you to remind everyone of that. 
So the 3 minutes is the pilot using their remaining fuel until they are required to depart for a base that is off the map and within their remaining fuel range.
In addition, a plane (from a sunken CV) also departs the map after it has expended its ordnance (rockets, bombs, torpedoes) regardless of how much time remains on the "3 minutes".

Edited November 24 by Wolfswetpaws

[Aethervox]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

RTS CV's had fighters with limited ammo.

More importantly, RTS CVs had limited planes plus back 'then', AA & RTS CVs were balanced better, but ... we know what War Failing likes to do = FAIL. 😒

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Aethervox said:

More importantly, RTS CVs had limited planes plus back 'then', AA & RTS CVs were balanced better, but ... we know what War Failing likes to do = FAIL. 😒

Despite the last few words of your post ^^^, WG/WOWs is "still in business".  🙂 

Anyway.  Yes, RTS CV's couldn't get more planes above and beyond their listed hangar capacity.
But, the ammunition consumption realism also added realism about when to land & re-arm planes.
Land & re-arm at the right time and a CV player could have planes in the air to defend against incoming squadrons.
Land and re-arm at the wrong time and one could be "caught flat-footed" with planes on their decks like the Japanese at Midway.

That said, if you compare the "hangar capacity" of the RTS CV's and the rates of plane replenishment of the re-work CV's, and remember that a battle only lasts 20 minutes, there is a limit of planes available. 
And that limit can be calculated according to the plane regeneration parameter of each CV in World of Warships.
One could compare those theoretical limits with the RTS era hangar capacity, if the references could be located and the calculations are done.

I think the "plane limit" is more of a psychological hurdle for some players who really believe in the "unlimited planes" bovine-excrement.
There's a mathematical limit to the number of planes a re-work CV can deploy in a battle.
Careful plane management, which is an important CV player skill during RTS and Re-work, can keep squadrons sufficiently populated to be a threat.
Poor plane management, or a bit of bad luck by figuratively "face-planting" into too many walls of flak will swat squadrons from the sky and force a CV player to consider using their secondary-battery guns or their hull for a ramming attack.  😉 
 

[Aethervox]

I don't think reworked CVs are weak at all. Hasn't WoWS management made sure reworked CVs aren't weak?

As to making CL AA better, do we have to see another 'warp' added to all the other warps WG has already saddled WoWS with?

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

That said, if you compare the "hangar capacity" of the RTS CV's and the rates of plane replenishment of the re-work CV's, and remember that a battle only lasts 20 minutes, there is a limit of planes available. 

That's not a valid  comparison, coz a) AA was MUCH different back then and

                                                            b) a VERY significant factor is missing nowadays, namely plane vs plane action.

So yeah.....

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I think the "plane limit" is more of a psychological hurdle for some players who really believe in the "unlimited planes" bovine-excrement

The problem is the layer after layer of favouritism bestowed upon Cv's. IF that would be the only advantage then it would be just meme worthy, but given that's NOT the case and given ALL the other cookies ..... people shouldn't be surprised that Cv's are intensely disliked.

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

There's a mathematical limit to the number of planes a re-work CV can deploy in a battle.
Careful plane management, which is an important CV player skill during RTS and Re-work, can keep squadrons sufficiently populated to be a threat.
Poor plane management, or a bit of bad luck by figuratively "face-planting" into too many walls of flak will swat squadrons from the sky and force a CV player to consider using their secondary-battery guns or their hull for a ramming attack.  😉 

The only limit is battle duration and nothing else. As for the skill factor to which you are alluding, that is true for all classes, EXCEPT in consequences. And that's another layer of added favoritism.

 

The abysmal failure called the CV rework is a testament of how little Wedgie understands AND cares about their own game.

Edited November 24 by I_cant_Swim_

[WES_HoundDog]

13 hours ago, DoctorDank said:

Basically title, light cruisers have no armour, no range, no effective dmg (garbage pen and bbs having ways to avoid being set on fire/take massively reduced fire dmg), AA was the one thing they had going for them, but with more and more CVs being able to hard counter their AA with virtually 0 effort, not to mention the omnipresent plane spotting combined with their fragility, they are basically unplayable if you dont have a good spawn or a smoke bot division, since CVs ignore positioning and all

At this point, smoke is a better "AA" than austin AA on something that can jumpscare AA the CV since the CV has to blind drop the smoker which gives the smoker a chance to dodge it instead of having a crapton of AA mitigating mechanics that makes the first drop impossible to kill, and if the first drop cannot be stopped, then the CV can keep coming after that god tier AA cruiser over and over again, especially with tact squads making plane losses literally meaningless, and they also hit like a truck no matter how you position because those tact squads can set fires and take at least 5k out of your heatlh, when more often than not you are already dealing with cv spotting and/or having no heal at all

sit at the back with your bb blob? you cant shoot at anything unless you run spotter/range mod. leave your blob so you can play the damn game? get hyper focused because you have shit range and needing to get close to shoot at things

yes i get light cruisers have a high skill floor, but they shouldnt have a skill floor so high that it exceeds their skill ceiling while still having a hard counter that that is omnipresent in every game that is basically an instant loss if they decide to go after you

light cruisers are supposed to be decked out with aa and counter planes, not get countered by them with 0 effort due to flak being completely useless

if cv planes can always land the first strike against light cruisers with the maximum amount of aa available against it, then light cruiser aa should automatically instant kill cv squads no matter the hp, or make them immune to cv spotting and cv damage, since cvs are already effectively immune to aa, with flak being as useless as it, only serving as an idiot tax at best, or actively detrimental at worst

a tier 8 light cruiser should be able to shred t8 cv planes with dfaa active, not get mauled by it despite dfaa being active while not risking your hull and still having fast regenerating planes because tact squads are bullshit and make aa truly useless

 

Yup.  But Wargamming caters to those who can't compete by giving them ships you can't compete against.

Reason #1 why i won't ever give WeGe another dime.