It has to be said that the advanced operation and the poor matchmaking mechanism make it difficult for aircraft carriers to move forward.

[Kawaii_shirasu_azusa]

AI fleets of advanced operations has obviously become an AA hedgehog. Except for the single-shot Nakhimov/the Shinano, Max Immelmann, and Theseus, which can make a detour and are only affected by the outer circle of AA, the other aircraft carriers seem to be able to only perform some kamikaze-like attacks and will quickly lose all their aircraft.

Maybe they should weak these overpowered AI AA?

Edited January 9 by Kawaii_shirasu_azusa

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 minutes ago, Kawaii_shirasu_azusa said:

AI fleets of advanced operations has obviously become an AA hedgehog. Except for the single-shot Nakhimov/the Shinano, Max Immelmann, and Theseus, which can make a detour and are only affected by the outer circle of AA, the other aircraft carriers seem to be able to only perform some kamikaze-like attacks and will quickly lose all their aircraft.

Maybe they should weak these overpowered AI AA?

I just stopped playing CV in operations.

Easy solution.

It's not my job to fix the problems with the game, and WG staff have reacted with a lot of hostility to me and others suggesting improvements.

Play the game they give...don't play things that don't work.

Maybe they will notice, maybe not.

But the key point is for you to have fun. Don't drive yourself crazy trying to force WG to make a better game. They don't want to.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Kawaii_shirasu_azusa said:

AI fleets of advanced operations has obviously become an AA hedgehog. Except for the single-shot Nakhimov/the Shinano, Max Immelmann, and Theseus, which can make a detour and are only affected by the outer circle of AA, the other aircraft carriers seem to be able to only perform some kamikaze-like attacks and will quickly lose all their aircraft.

Maybe they should weak these overpowered AI AA?

Hmm.
It's been a while since I played a CV in Scenario Operations.
Which methods are you using to minimize flak effectiveness?
 

Quote

  

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

59 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I just stopped playing CV in operations.

Easy solution.

It's not my job to fix the problems with the game, and WG staff have reacted with a lot of hostility to me and others suggesting improvements.

Play the game they give...don't play things that don't work.

Maybe they will notice, maybe not.

But the key point is for you to have fun. Don't drive yourself crazy trying to force WG to make a better game. They don't want to.

That's one option.

I'd rather learn by comparing and sharing experiences and thinking of solutions, though.  🙂 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

WG staff have reacted with a lot of hostility to me and others suggesting improvements

This is quite possibly because of the way you and those others approach "making suggestions".

So tell me, is AA effective or not?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

59 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

That's one option.

I'd rather learn by comparing and sharing experiences and thinking of solutions, though.  🙂 

True.

But in most of the high tier ops especially, the enemy ships blob up and you lose too many planes to the DPS, even if you do dodge flak.

Being bottom tier in a CV in an OP is miserable, and really highlights how tier dependent CV performance is.

I'm a CV main...and I've found BBs and cruisers are much better ships for OPs these days.

[Wolfswetpaws]

40 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

True.

But in most of the high tier ops especially, the enemy ships blob up and you lose too many planes to the DPS, even if you do dodge flak.

Being bottom tier in a CV in an OP is miserable, and really highlights how tier dependent CV performance is.

I'm a CV main...and I've found BBs and cruisers are much better ships for OPs these days.

Food for thought.
I'll have to play a few games with my CV's, to re-familiarize myself with current in-game conditions.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

This is quite possibly because of the way you and those others approach "making suggestions".

So tell me, is AA effective or not?

Well, "change" and the "suggestions to change" are almost always met with all sorts of "Negative Waves" cause Culture trumps change 100% of the time.  Change is, in most cases, a very slow thing...

And, they don't like some of us because 'we're right" and they are just harping the corporate mantra......powerless...  Where, we have all of the options:  we can quit;  we can work with external agencies to force videogame changes Nationally; we can stop spending; or, we can simply carry on till they close the doors...

See !  We have all of the options and they, simply are forced to do as told....

[Kynami]

Unless one is playing a CV with incredibly slow planes like UK tech tree CVs possess being of the correct tier mostly comes down to misplay to get deplaned. There is an exception however, in the case of a T8 CV being forcibly up-tiered into a T9 group and facing super ships. Particularly if you end up in a situation like defend the aerodrome operation where mass numbers of USN cruisers and Maines come rushing in. Most T8 CVs without tactical squadrons are going to be utterly smashed there because of how obnoxious it is to try bashing away at T11 AA range and power.

Honestly there really should just be a hard break between T8 and T9+ when it comes to operations. Because it mostly sucks to queue in a T8 and then get slapped out by mass Yoshino/Maine cross map artillery if you are a cruiser. And in the case of most of the T8 CVs there are two operations that are basically you are reduced to a glorified spotter because of the sheer amount AA you are forced to deal with to even get off singular strikes.

The player base makes fun of fail divisions in regular random matches. So its just fairly annoying that it can end up forced in the case of a T8 carrier because the matchmaker decided to throw one or two T9s into an otherwise T8 group and massively jack up the level of opposition of an operation. If a clan division does it on purpose they asked for it. If it is somebody entering the queue solo however... it could use a bit of rules massaging.

[Andrewbassg]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Being bottom tier in a CV in an OP is miserable, and really highlights how tier dependent CV performance is.

 

Yep. Which highlights one more time the utter failure called Cv rework. But alas, Wedgie is not interested in a balanced game.

 

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I'm a CV main...and I've found BBs and cruisers are much better ships for OPs these days.

Cruisers always used to be the bane of ops. On the other hand @Volron is one of the best Cv ops players across the board.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Kynami said:

Honestly there really should just be a hard break between T8 and T9+ when it comes to operations

There are countless problems  with the ops reworks. Newports repair zones are STILL for T6. The voiceover announcing the "CV;s" aka Des Moines and Satsuma/Mushashi is STILL not fixed. Just to give a hint. 

[invicta2012]

2 hours ago, Kynami said:

Unless one is playing a CV with incredibly slow planes like UK tech tree CVs possess being of the correct tier mostly comes down to misplay to get deplaned.

Over-enthusiasm rather than misplay. Using planes strategically for the specific OP, spotting, saving resources for the end game are all really useful. That and having a variety of CVs to play. I think it also helps to concentrate on long-range attacks with torpedo bombers which can be used to force enemies to give broadsides to team mates. all the while using the old-school squad dropping techniques and some tangental attacking courses... all too easy to try and drop on the edge of a cluster of reds and drop the next squadron right in the middle of concentrated AA.

 

Edited January 9 by invicta2012

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Kynami said:

Unless one is playing a CV with incredibly slow planes like UK tech tree CVs possess being of the correct tier mostly comes down to misplay to get deplaned. There is an exception however, in the case of a T8 CV being forcibly up-tiered into a T9 group and facing super ships. Particularly if you end up in a situation like defend the aerodrome operation where mass numbers of USN cruisers and Maines come rushing in. Most T8 CVs without tactical squadrons are going to be utterly smashed there because of how obnoxious it is to try bashing away at T11 AA range and power.

Honestly there really should just be a hard break between T8 and T9+ when it comes to operations. Because it mostly sucks to queue in a T8 and then get slapped out by mass Yoshino/Maine cross map artillery if you are a cruiser. And in the case of most of the T8 CVs there are two operations that are basically you are reduced to a glorified spotter because of the sheer amount AA you are forced to deal with to even get off singular strikes.

The player base makes fun of fail divisions in regular random matches. So its just fairly annoying that it can end up forced in the case of a T8 carrier because the matchmaker decided to throw one or two T9s into an otherwise T8 group and massively jack up the level of opposition of an operation. If a clan division does it on purpose they asked for it. If it is somebody entering the queue solo however... it could use a bit of rules massaging.

Indeed.

In the previous days, CVs were broken because the tier 8 CVs were ALWAYS top tier and OP.

Now, they are almost always tier 6 in a game against enemy tier 9s...or tier 8 in a game against enemy tier 11s.

There is very little point in bringing them unless you want to suffer.

So I don't.

It's still broken, just in a different way.

[Kawaii_shirasu_azusa]

12 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

This is quite possibly because of the way you and those others approach "making suggestions".

So tell me, is AA effective or not?

AA certainly worked until I chose ships that ignored/refused to interact with the game's mechanics. This is a false proposition, you know, this game is full of ships that ignore the mechanics. But generally speaking, it's not only ships that ignore the mechanics that can be played smoothly, and operation is an exception.

[Kruzenstern]

Aside from the AA problems in operations (bots blobbing, probably boosted AA values and also every cruiser having and using a fighter), CVs also suffer from just not having enough dpm. When paired with good players on your team, the bots die so quickly that you are hard pressed to get any serious damage in. If your team sucks, you don't have enough influence to turn the tide.

The only CVs that I found to be somewhat working are the russian ones, and of course GZ with a smoke providing DD. But a BB or cruiser will always do better than any CV (disregarding players skill of course, a good CV player will outdo a bad BBaby obviously).

But honestly I don't see much of a problem there. CVs are kinda OP in PvP, so I am fine with them being UP in operations. Imho their main fearture (pun inteded) in PvP is the spotting they provide, and that is just not needed in ops and doesn't bother the bots (who don't care about going dark and survival in general anyway)

Edited January 10 by Kruzenstern

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 hours ago, Kruzenstern said:

Aside from the AA problems in operations (bots blobbing, probably boosted AA values and also every cruiser having and using a fighter), CVs also suffer from just not having enough dpm. When paired with good players on your team, the bots die so quickly that you are hard pressed to get any serious damage in. If your team sucks, you don't have enough influence to turn the tide.

The only CVs that I found to be somewhat working are the russian ones, and of course GZ with a smoke providing DD. But a BB or cruiser will always do better than any CV (disregarding players skill of course, a good CV player will outdo a bad BBaby obviously).

But honestly I don't see much of a problem there. CVs are kinda OP in PvP, so I am fine with them being UP in operations. Imho their main fearture (pun inteded) in PvP is the spotting they provide, and that is just not needed in ops and doesn't bother the bots (who don't care about going dark and survival in general anyway)

Your last couple of sentences are worth consideration, I feel.
Because the 'Bots do behave differently than the "typical" random battle player.

For the purpose of improving player performance in Scenario Operations, comparing the behaviors and positioning could be beneficial.
Also, humans can become overwhelmed by being outnumbered in some Scenario Operations (if the human players don't sink 'Bot ships quickly and efficiently).
Each mode has play-style lessons to offer?  🙂 

[Kruzenstern]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Also, humans can become overwhelmed by being outnumbered in some Scenario Operations (if the human players don't sink 'Bot ships quickly and efficiently).
Each mode has play-style lessons to offer?

That is very correct. Also why many PvP players fail at operations, because while in PvP being too aggressive often gets you killed, in operations it is often the opposite, not being aggressive enough gets the team killed (and eventually youself too). Newport is a good example. The best results can be gotten by hovering around the circle that the bots have to breach. Yet I see so many BBs, even sec-specced ones, sitting back half the way to the repair circles, or even further. And then all too often the bots are not killed fast enough to get the 'good' result, because people are 1. too far away for good accuracy and 2. not in a position to exploit broadsides and 3. not in range for their secondaries. And I am shot to pieces because I try on my own to salvage the mess the 'cautious' players create.

But I guess you can take the PvPer out of PvP, but you cant take the PvP out of the PvPer.

[Wolfswetpaws]

13 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

But I guess you can take the PvPer out of PvP, but you cant take the PvP out of the PvPer.

Such a player might need re-training, to learn new "diciplines"?  🙂 
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

24 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Such a player might need re-training, to learn new "diciplines"?  🙂 
 

You American comrades always need so many words where one is enough. 'Gulag'.

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

You American comrades always need so many words where one is enough. 'Gulag'.

No need for a Gulag, when one can hire a motivating trainer.  😉 
  
  

[aleksi111]

23 hours ago, Kynami said:

Because it mostly sucks to queue in a T8 and then get slapped

This here

I figured this one out 5mins after the T9-T11 were announced to be allowed into ops with corresponding uptier of Bots -Even if it's just 1/7 as T9 with the rest being T8

...Haven't played Ops since the rework due to other priorities, and this change pretty much ensures I won't que in to them in anything else than the best T7's there are or Premium ships that let me drag in 21pt captains

 

Think stuff like

• Weimar
• Renown '44
• Maya
• Abruzzi
• Fiji
• Jervis
• Sims

Edited January 10 by aleksi111

[Kawaii_shirasu_azusa]

2 hours ago, Kruzenstern said:

That is very correct. Also why many PvP players fail at operations, because while in PvP being too aggressive often gets you killed, in operations it is often the opposite, not being aggressive enough gets the team killed (and eventually youself too). Newport is a good example. The best results can be gotten by hovering around the circle that the bots have to breach. Yet I see so many BBs, even sec-specced ones, sitting back half the way to the repair circles, or even further. And then all too often the bots are not killed fast enough to get the 'good' result, because people are 1. too far away for good accuracy and 2. not in a position to exploit broadsides and 3. not in range for their secondaries. And I am shot to pieces because I try on my own to salvage the mess the 'cautious' players create.

But I guess you can take the PvPer out of PvP, but you cant take the PvP out of the PvPer.

In fact... except for clan battle, most of the modes are just a few living people and some actors invited from zombie movie sets ()

Operation is more like a moving target with a fixed trajectory, although they are more accurate than those dummies (applying the automatic locking similar to the secondary gun)

[GandalfTehGray]

On 1/9/2025 at 10:47 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But in most of the high tier ops especially, the enemy ships blob up and you lose too many planes to the DPS, even if you do dodge flak.

Being bottom tier in a CV in an OP is miserable, and really highlights how tier dependent CV performance is.

I'm a CV main...and I've found BBs and cruisers are much better ships for OPs these days.

Makes the Russian CVs the go to pick as you will not get follow up strikes with most other options.

While asym is here I don't mind much as I can complete CV missions there, but once that is gone again I'll probably avoid those missions. 

[Kawaii_shirasu_azusa]

2 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

Makes the Russian CVs the go to pick as you will not get follow up strikes with most other options.

While asym is here I don't mind much as I can complete CV missions there, but once that is gone again I'll probably avoid those missions. 

u should try to play shinano/imm/theseus( ) they r also avoid AA attack if u learned how to make a bombing-spinning cycle

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

14 hours ago, Kawaii_shirasu_azusa said:

AA certainly worked until I chose ships that ignored/refused to interact with the game's mechanics. This is a false proposition, you know, this game is full of ships that ignore the mechanics. But generally speaking, it's not only ships that ignore the mechanics that can be played smoothly, and operation is an exception.

Really depends on what folks mean by effective AA...

It doesn't stop spotting.

It doesn't even prevent damage (even tier 11 AA vs tier 8 planes).

What it does do is make the damage output over time of the CV drop to very low levels.

Is that 'effective'?

Depends on context...something WG PR people don't want to discuss...because inevitably it all circles back around to the rather lazy game balancing choices that were made in furtherance of the business strategy.

It's a pointless conversation that some folks like to try to drag players into so they can beat up on non-approved ideas.

Walk warily, my friend.