Leaderboard

1. Yes, carriers should be added for historical realism. Strong AA is also a pretty defining trait for American ships and some others. I do hope everything gets balanced on PC. Infinite planes is stupid though; a carrier player should have to think and prioritize target selection, not just be able to throw wave after wave of planes at a ship until it's sunk. At some point, you'll burn through your consumables defending yourself, and they will eventually sink you, costing you a hefty consumable resupply fee. 2. I'll give them a try at least. 3. As long as it's balanced, don't care.

i want to see them added but the implementation in PC is already highly questionable. the veteran CV players say, that especially the lower tiers are not really interesting to play while offering seal clubbing gameplay. CV vs CV fights are basically bs, because of the auto use of defensive fighters for CVs. You need surface ships to battle CVs. On the other hand, CVs are still the last ones to be spotted and shot at. some ship lines deal far better with planes than others. US cruisers will cement tier roles as top dogs, while other lines become more and more useless. same for battleships. DDs in general will have a very hard time, because their AA is 💩. Notser just uploaded a video, where he was sailing a full AA built gearing and despite using all charges of def-AA, he did not shoot down a single plain. he said that you basically need your smoke to do your jobs. Other lines except Russians and Americans will have even higher problems, because they don't even have def-AA to panic enemy fighters, while having crap-AA. he was basically harassed and worn down by endless fighter waves, without being able to defend against them. Overall very frustrating (they dealt only chip damage but very often) gameplay. Not necessarily OP in regards of damage done by the CV but because he simply was helpless. this needs to be looked at. He had far less problems in his BBs (other videos) against the planes and he is not going to have problems in his AA cruisers either but the rework seems to have missed its purpose. it was meant to enhance the CV gameplay and to take pressure off DDs, while making BBs have to worry about planes again. If you follow farrazela and notser(and other players), it looks like they failed. While high tier becomes interesting again from a CV perspective, it becomes extremely frustrating for DDs. if they come to the console, i will off course play CVs - at least to test and understand them but i am very skeptical about the implementation. It needs a lot of fine tuning. the graf zeppelin should off course be added to the game. Its already playable on PC. Btw it was basically a finished ship bit they could not decide what planes they should use. However - they first need to balance carrier gameplay and reach their goals. Fun gameplay for CV players, threat to BBs, take pressure off DDs.

Have a safe and happy new year everyone

@KaLeuWillenbrock I don't want a carbon copy, but I would like the best aspects carried over. Limiting player choice I do not think is a good direction to go. As far as balance its been made clear what is perceived the majority wants is what will happen, which is all well and good if it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner and your one of the wolves, less so if your the sheep. I don't believe that having 5 captains or 50 with pretermined skill set options is a good thing if none are viable to the players that want to use them. I'll ask again seeing you ignored it last time. If a player finds none of the captains in a given nation they want to play suitable to their playstyle what options does that player have? I will remind you it's not different it's a scaled down version. Maybe if they did not " borrow" so heavily you could consider it different. But jiggling around a few tech trees and eliminating player choices does not really qualify it as being its own entity. I'm still testing because despite its faults( and no game is perfect, except star citizen) I still have fun playing and testing it. I know I'm in the minority opinion on just about everything but I can live with it lol. Last thing they need is a bunch of yes men( not saying you are) and there are plenty of them. If PC version was still an option, I would play it over this version because I like the options it gives. I can still have fun here but I don't see myself spending on premiums like I would there. And if Naval action devs ever got their heads on straight I would hook up my PC on my ceiling if I had too to play it.

But yet the majority will still use the same captains with the same skill sets. You could have 20 different commanders, all with different predetermined skills and yet if only 4 are really viable then the other 16 are just filler to give the illusion of options. If you needed to go off-road in a vehicle and you had 5 choices to use, say a 4x4 suv, a Honda civic, a Yugo, an Aerostar( minivan) and a VW bug. Which would you choose? Sure you have 5 options but only one real viable choice. The same will happen here. Besides we don't know how many of those new skills will be for carriers or duplicates.

@KaLeuWillenbrock this will not stop cookie cutter captain builds, no more than the PC does. Everyone will gravitate to what works. The thinking this will add more choice or better balance things is just an illusion.