Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[Snargfargle]

36 minutes ago, Verytis said:

That only gives advantage to those who form divisions and/or use voice chat.

By "Chat" I meant keyboard chat. I don't even own a microphone. I don't have a camera connected to my computer either, both for security reasons. I once did an experiment when the family was out for the holidays by going around and saying the name of a product that I knew they would never search for around their purportedly turned off devices. Everyone then started wondering why they were all of a sudden getting ads for lab centrifuges on their phones and tablets.

[ArIskandir]

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

How does the transition between "attack" and "travel" mode work?

• is "attack" mode limited to only during attack runs or it is a slower mode of travel?
• How do you prevent a CV player from staying in "attack" mode?
• How can a CV attempt to strike something invisible?

 

The implication is the transition correspond to the plane's attack run, when you press the first click

• As I understood, attack mode corresponds to attack run, travel mode would be equivalent to normal flight at max speed (boosted), so there's no expenditure of boost to reach the target, that's a big deal everyone is ignoring.
• The attack runs have a time limit and then there's a cooldown time before the next attack run is possible
• The moment you initiate an attack run, you gain normal visibility. Enemies spotted by your team mates are also visible.

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

The fact the CV can now travel faster and attack more frequently means CV dmg output will increase. Certain targets like brawling ships will be under even more pressure, while not benefiting from spotting changes in anyway.

It is expected the attacks will be less effective because the vision limitations and more time will be required to aquire unspotted targets, also the target selection will be more predictable, making it easier to account for. The escalation of AA effectiveness over time should help focused ships to survive.

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

AA is actually weakened in that you can no longer position AA ships in front to block/reroute CV's flight path, without a consumable. AA CLs in particular being forced to take a consumable to perform AA duties, while suffering from reduced spotting support against heavier surface combatants. 

Indeed AA support will need to be adjusted much closer to the target in order to block the attack run, and considering the damage reduction planes gain during the attack run phase (the only time they will be vulnerable to AA) there's the risk of rendering AA interactions even more ineffective. That's the aspect I'm not too convinced about these proposals.

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

There is literally ZERO address to fighter spotting.

Yup, that's the elephant in the room. I guess it will be addressed later as a way to patch up holes in the proposal.

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

Benefactors:

• Main benefit I see is only DDs not getting randomly spotted, but that is partially due to the players being bad enough to put themselves in a CV's flight path. Others are just getting purposely hunted by RPF or CV counter-spotting.
• That and sluggish CAs with absurdly low surface detection having less air spotting to counter them.

In general this should help isolated targets and independent/flanking action, it could have a positive impact in "opening up" the maps and promoting more aggressive plays. Tho I'm worried about how this will impact the performance of DBs and the general effectiveness of AA. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

19 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As I understood, attack mode corresponds to attack run, travel mode would be equivalent to normal flight at max speed (boosted), so there's no expenditure of boost to reach the target, that's a big deal everyone is ignoring

Not ignoring it at all. It's not that big of a deal...since we CV mains are often boosting in what is travel mode NOW.

20 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

• The attack runs have a time limit and then there's a cooldown time before the next attack run is possible
• The moment you initiate an attack run, you gain normal visibility. Enemies spotted by your team mates are also visible.

Initiation of attack run currently reduces the maneuverability of your strike planes.

Having to initiate an attack run without being able to spot your own targets will make it significantly harder...and aiming with CVs is already something the majority of players struggle to do.

This will make it MUCH harder.

21 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

It is expected the attacks will be less effective because the vision limitations and more time will be required to aquire unspotted targets, also the target selection will be more predictable, making it easier to account for. The escalation of AA effectiveness over time should help focused ships to survive.

Increasing AA power leading to more plane losses is a commonly held myth of WG developers.

What actually happens is that CV players just don't attack that ship.

A far better mechanic would have been to not have AA mounts be destroyable...but since that has been proposed by players, WG developers believe they can't use it...because reasons.

23 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Indeed AA support will need to be adjusted much closer to the target in order to block the attack run, and considering the damage reduction planes gain during the attack run phase (the only time they will be vulnerable to AA) there's the risk of rendering AA interactions even more ineffective. That's the aspect I'm not too convinced about these proposals.

Indeed.

The whole travel mode concept is leading to multiple ridiculous outcomes.

24 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

In general this should help isolated targets and independent/flanking action, it could have a positive impact in "opening up" the maps and promoting more aggressive plays. Tho I'm worried about how this will impact the performance of DBs and the general effectiveness of AA. 

It will not do so, as destroyers still exist. You don't see aggressive plays and flanking actions in KotS...and you don't see them NOW in CV less games.

I see a lot of the ignorance of WG development staff on display with these proposals.

It's disheartening.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

First impressions. This could be a great change to these two broken classes, just wonder why it took WG 8 years .... 8 years to realize that plane spotting is broken. But at least they woke up and seem to want to fix a lot of issues, great.

Venezia and Hinden finally get plane ASW just like rest of the heavy cruisers, great but why didn't they get it from the start? And why do Dutch still dont get it?! They already have plane hangers on board FFS?? Im confused....

2 fears I have regarding this.

1. How much of these balancing things will FUBAR the game and how many new bugs will they bring? (going by WG track record).

2. How long time will it take for the majority of the playerbase to get all these new mechanics? I would go so far as I think most of the players are still pretty clueless to when it comes to Subs and at what depth they are spotted by different things and all the rest of the sub mechanics.

But overall im cautiously hopeful. Removing planespotting is a HUGE step in the right direction for this game. Damn, I might even go back to playing DDs.

Time will tell how well these changes will be implemented.

 

 

[Jakob Knight]

Something to also consider is the impact of these changes on specific ships and lines.

 

The FDR is a premium CV that has an extremely long delay between attack runs to balance the large attack formations it deploys.  Only spotting when attacking impacts this ship considerably more than most CV.

 

The RU line of CVs only gets one attack run from their planes, so making it impossible for the ships planes to spot before attacking will put these CVs into an especially bad spot if there is no one on their team able to provide spotting.

 

The quicker flight times means quicker launch rates which will deplete a CVs ready planes quicker, which also will hit CVs like Saipan and FDR harder than others.  

 

The requirement to use Defensive Fire to achieve effective plane interdiction will mean the ships with limited charges of those will be inversely impacted by the number of charges.

 

Subs designed to shotgun to be effective will be disadvantaged by the reduction in their damage capabilities from what they were implemented to have.

 

Battleships and Cruisers that try to use terrain for cover will no longer have CVs spotting for them and will be required to leave cover to become the spotters for their CV.  Failure to do so will leave their CV unable to function.

 

Those are just the ones off the top of my head, but examples of why I am very skeptical about the scale of these changes.  They don't seem to have been given good scrutiny before being decided upon and look more like appeasement efforts than thought out solutions.  Regardless, the changes they will make are going to be profound and affect every ship in the game.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Snargfargle]

29 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

You don't see aggressive plays and flanking actions in KotS...

I watched a few KOTS games and found them exceedingly boring. "OK, we are one point ahead, everyone hide until the clock runs out." I'd rather play with a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs.

[HogHammer]

@OldSchoolGaming_Youtube and @Jakob Knight...both good points and concerns you guys listed.

What I really want to see is the devblog announcement regarding these changes.  In the news article, there are a lot of changes that will affect the game and ship lines.  The developers, and those recently hired will really have their hands full, not just in 13.1 and 13.2 but going forward for several updates going forward.    

I will say I am cautiously optimistic based on the news piece, but I really want to see the devblog for a better description of each change.  This is a rather ambitious undertaking by any group of game developers.

[clammboy]

11 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/upcoming-changes-to-aircraft-carriers-and-submarines/

Suffice to say that I think most of these proposed changes are bovine excrement.
I feel that several of them are solutions in search of a problem.
I get the distinct impression that non-submarine and non-CV players are being "coddled" and given advantages they don't actually need.

That's my two doubloons, for now.

Ununfortunatley I feel a thread like this is pretty much divided by those who play and enjoy Subs and CVs and those who don't. With the new proposed changes being analyzed and criticized by players depending on which side of the fence they are on. As we all know all data trends whatever can be shaped and molded to fit almost anyones agenda. I guess we will  just have to wait and see what happens when the changes are implemented live. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by clammboy

[Jakob Knight]

Here's another thing that occured to me in another thread.

 

What is this going to do to the effectiveness of the Kitakami with CVs relying on other ships to attack it?

 

"Fear...is the appropriate response." - 'Einstein', Farscape.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I believe that is what most non-CV/non-sub players were saying about subs and CVs. That they were in fact, given perks/advantages other surface ships didn't get (like their ability to spot for themselves without any support, immunity to detonations, improved auto-DCP, auto-consumables, less damage from fires/flooding, etc.), and that they were "coddled".

Also, that some of the changes Wargaming made (like Enlarged Propeller Shaft change with ended up being a buff to subs) were "solutions in search of a problem". I've heard this one before 🙂

My own two 356mm shells, for now.

CV's went from RTS era to "re-worked" first-person-shooter perspective era.
People can lay their complaints, about the changes, into WG/WOWs' in-box.

Submarine testing.  I don't remember ever asking for an enlarged propeller shaft.
Yet, someone in WG/WOWs got the idea (from somewhere) and ran with it.

So, the perks/advantages phenomena is a welcome discussion, as far as I am concerned.

If players are provided the user-interface buttons to control the CV and the planes without recalling the planes, then manual control of the CV's hull consumables is viable.
But WG/WOWs *took* *that* *away*.
CV players went from being RTS multi-taskers to what the "re-work" provided (i.e. *few* options).
(People who've been on the old NA forums might remember my opposition to the CV re-work in the first place?)

Submarine torpedoes that require a long time to arm and/or accelerate?
How about we remember that those torpedoes are launched with compressed air so they'll get out of the tubes and up to speed quickly?!?  🙂 

The RTS to "re-work" CV change was *because* players complained (as I recall the situation).
The nerf to the CV rocket firing sequence (during the re-work era) was because players *complained* better than the could *just dodge*.  Nevermind the fact that plenty of DD drivers were already good at dodging the non-nerfed rockets, eh?  🙂 

I love ya @Sailor_Moon.  And we've done good work in the past collaborating on research projects and sailing together in divisions.  And I'm glad we can have civil discussions from different points of view, even if we aren't entirely in agreement.  But, I can't help feeling like I'm "calling a Spade, a Spade", here.  🙂 

 @Ensign Cthulhu and others have said "Be careful what you wish for" on various occasions. 
And I think this is one of those occasions.
Whining is again attempting to supplant information, education and logical reasoning, in my opinion.  🙂 

I can't help but feel there are better ways to address the concerns of some players while preserving a fun and interesting playing environment.
 

[Itwastuesday]

One thing is for certain, these carrier buffs will be done in a way that makes cv diff even bigger. Your 40% casual cv won't even incidentally spot anything while the enemy 60% sky cancer continues to dominate the game.

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

We's a-fightin' but we's a-doin' it in a civil manner.

Discussing and exchanging perspectives isn't fighting.  No need to escalate what don't need escalatin'.  

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I believe most non-CV/non-Sub players want Jutland and not modern warfare that began in WWII.  Subs and CVs are units that inherently fight in different manners than DDs, CAs, and BBs, and operate in a different medium.  That means they will have advantages and disadvantages different from surface units, and those differences are too much for those players.  We saw the same thing directed at DDs by BB and CA players who couldn't accept their concealment because it was a 'Romulan Cloaking Device'.  Some players don't know how to do anything but point and shoot, and get upset if they have to do more.  Note also that the vast majority of commanders skills for surface ships and CVs are completely buffs, so I don't see why Sub skills should not be as well (but are not currently).  This seems to be also going to be reworked, but in what direction and form we don't know.

 

It -is- going to be interesting to see the CVs being the ones sending out calls for intelligence and reporting their teams for not giving it to them.

 

I'm willing to give these changes a chance, even when I see glaring issues possible, but so many at once is asking for trouble in what the Devs aren't seeing.  And in what none of us will see until they are all put in place and interact together with themselves and the rest of the game.

 

I like your first paragraph.

The second paragraph was enough to give me a chuckle.

The third paragraph is a sentiment I'm not feeling, personally.

Example:  Not so long ago there were changes made to the damage-done-while-spotting mechanic so that players who perform spotting get more credit for doing so.  While theoretically every ship type can benefit, it was CV's which stood to benefit the most.  Now, that CV spotting is proposed to be gutted, so too will their ability to reap a benefit.

As you pointed out earlier, there are many interwoven game mechanics and balance decisions.  
Changing one thing can affect many other things.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, HogHammer said:

@OldSchoolGaming_Youtube and @Jakob Knight...both good points and concerns you guys listed.

What I really want to see is the devblog announcement regarding these changes.  In the news article, there are a lot of changes that will affect the game and ship lines.  The developers, and those recently hired will really have their hands full, not just in 13.1 and 13.2 but going forward for several updates going forward.    

I will say I am cautiously optimistic based on the news piece, but I really want to see the devblog for a better description of each change.  This is a rather ambitious undertaking by any group of game developers.

Hmmmmm.  Did you watch the Twitch broadcast yesterday?  Those two spokes-people (pronoun correct???) were as nervous as a Cat in a Dog pound;  and, everything they said was a facade;  inside of a narrative defined by obfuscation; where the word dissembling screams at you.....  My impression was that of sincere uncertainty bordering on panic. 

My concern:  that dissimilar weapons (carrier and subs) can't fit into the small, time compressed maps we have.....  The rules of complexity are screaming "DANGER WIll Robinson, DANGER"...... (to me because I did/do this kind of work.....figuring out what complexity does to established cultures and markets....which, is Asymmetrical Systems theory !) 

Subs and Carriers aren't "bad"....it's just that their "combat power" exceeds the math of LOS surface combat vessels.  History showed us that in 1925 and, in actual combat practice, dissimilar weapons proved that the LOS combat vessels were "out classed".  A Bi-plane doomed the Bismark....  HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse were the first major combatants sunk by air....  So, if History actually outlines what dissimilar weapons did to change History, why can we expect anything else in this game....?  They are dissimilar and don't/can't fit into small, time compressed maps no matter how hard anyone tries....  Just won't fit....

The solutions:  larger maps.  Why?  Because, they slow down the dissimilarity, elongate the surface actions to allow counter measures to take effect...   Missiles ended the Carriers planes ability to fight in LOS of surface ships.....  Missiles are the next step and if Carriers and Sub can't fit on our maps now.......imagine what missiles will do....  Here again, the Laws of Complexity (LOC) can't be avoided........it's inevitable.  If you try, one word describes that:  Sisyphus...  Does the game feel as if we are pushing a heavy bolder up a steep grade???  Yep.  LOC are in play - lol.

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

The FDR is a premium CV that has an extremely long delay between attack runs to balance the large attack formations it deploys.  Only spotting when attacking impacts this ship considerably more than most CV.

 

The RU line of CVs only gets one attack run from their planes, so making it impossible for the ships planes to spot before attacking will put these CVs into an especially bad spot if there is no one on their team able to provide spotting.

I’m wondering if this isn’t the result of WG’s typical translation/“miscommunication” issues, because these types of changes would be incredibly crippling for a lot of CVs.

“Travel mode” where planes run full speed and are immune to standard AA fire but can’t spot surface ships sounds a lot like planes cruising at higher altitudes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is implemented as a mirror reflection of subs running at depth (where they have limited spotting but are immune to standard sources of damage), with “attack mode” being simply the standard CV movement mechanics we currently have, but with nerfed speed. CVs would be forced to choose between strike speed (“travel mode”) or spotting utility (“attack mode”) as they move to strike their targets. That seems like a much more rational approach than limiting CV spotting to only the attack run.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, clammboy said:

Ununfortunatley I feel a thread like this is pretty much divided by those who play and enjoy Subs and CVs and those who don't. With the new proposed changes being analyzed and criticized by players depending on which side of the fence they are on. As we all know all data trends whatever can be shaped and molded to fit almost anyones agenda. I guess we will  just have to wait and see what happens when the changes are implemented live. 

This is why @ArIskandir calls you "Master Clamm".  
Well said, @clammboy.  🙂 

(Though, I'm possibly not as keen to see the proposed changes implemented.)

[Arcus_Aesopi]

Spotting...

The ship or plane that has line of sight to a target gets a perfect picture...

A ship that is using another's spotting gets severe dispersion penalty +75% -ish and increased time between shots penalty +20% -ish (mimicking shots having to be called by the spotter) which decreases over time (1 minute?) and resets if spotting is lost for any reason...

The problem, as I see it, is the whole mechanic... not planes or subs or anything else.  It's another thing that violates the "willing suspension of disbelief" that makes a themed game (or great fiction) work well.

Subs...  just no.  Clearly WG isn't going to make them work.  Could have been great and would play well with the spotting mechanism above, particularly if the scoring made spotting worth what it should be.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Arcusaesopi
English

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 minutes ago, Asym said:

Hmmmmm.  Did you watch the Twitch broadcast yesterday?  Those two spokes-people (pronoun correct???) were as nervous as a Cat in a Dog pound;  and, everything they said was a facade;  inside of a narrative defined by obfuscation; where the word dissembling screams at you.....  My impression was that of sincere uncertainty bordering on panic. 

My concern:  that dissimilar weapons (carrier and subs) can't fit into the small, time compressed maps we have.....  The rules of complexity are screaming "DANGER WIll Robinson, DANGER"...... (to me because I did/do this kind of work.....figuring out what complexity does to established cultures and markets....which, is Asymmetrical Systems theory !) 

Subs and Carriers aren't "bad"....it's just that their "combat power" exceeds the math of LOS surface combat vessels.  History showed us that in 1925 and, in actual combat practice, dissimilar weapons proved that the LOS combat vessels were "out classed".  A Bi-plane doomed the Bismark....  HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse were the first major combatants sunk by air....  So, if History actually outlines what dissimilar weapons did to change History, why can we expect anything else in this game....?  They are dissimilar and don't/can't fit into small, time compressed maps no matter how hard anyone tries....  Just won't fit....

The solutions:  larger maps.  Why?  Because, they slow down the dissimilarity, elongate the surface actions to allow counter measures to take effect...   Missiles ended the Carriers planes ability to fight in LOS of surface ships.....  Missiles are the next step and if Carriers and Sub can't fit on our maps now.......imagine what missiles will do....  Here again, the Laws of Complexity (LOC) can't be avoided........it's inevitable.  If you try, one word describes that:  Sisyphus...  Does the game feel as if we are pushing a heavy bolder up a steep grade???  Yep.  LOC are in play - lol.

Quote

Just won't fit....

Well, history shows such "Just won't fit" creations were created and used and thus "fit" into reality.

I imagine plenty of "putting our thinkin' cap on" activity was done by those responsible for military planning and procurement of equipment once they learned more about what they were up against.

The "we need bigger maps" sentiment is something I can agree with you on, though.
Every match is like a "Taffy 3" or "close air-support mission" situation for CV's, as things are now (and have been for a long time), in my opinion.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

14 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I’m wondering if this isn’t the result of WG’s typical translation/“miscommunication” issues, because these types of changes would be incredibly crippling for a lot of CVs.

“Travel mode” where planes run full speed and are immune to standard AA fire but can’t spot surface ships sounds a lot like planes cruising at higher altitudes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is implemented as a mirror reflection of subs running at depth (where they have limited spotting but are immune to standard sources of damage), with “attack mode” being simply the standard CV movement mechanics we currently have, but with nerfed speed. CVs would be forced to choose between strike speed (“travel mode”) or spotting utility (“attack mode”) as they move to strike their targets.

As you point out, this could be a language/translation issue.  Essentially poor writing?

Still, as @Verytis mentioned in another post, how to we "switch" altitudes?

And what if I *want* my planes to perform spotting and risk getting hit by flak?  🙂 

[Nevermore135]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Still, as @Verytis mentioned in another post, how to we "switch" altitudes?

The same way subs do - you press a key to ascend/descend between two set altitudes (depths).

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

And what if I *want* my planes to perform spotting and risk getting hit by flak?  🙂 

Then you run at “attack” altitude, where you sacrifice speed for the ability to spot.

[ArIskandir]

43 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

What is this going to do to the effectiveness of the Kitakami with CVs relying on other ships to attack it?

Imo, the "CV relying on other ships to attack" thing is being overhyped... very likely some attack time values will need to be adjusted, maybe some odules and skills too, but overall CVs will still be perfectly able to attack by themselves. The mechanics of the attack probably will vary a bit, requiring using more boost for brakes instead of going faster, but I don't see major issues lining up strikes. 

Of course some details will need to be adjusted, for example is very unlikely the attack routine for DBs remain unchanged, but I don't see significant problems that can't be solved by adjusting the timers of the different actions.

I'm more worried about the impact over AA effectivenes. For this idea to properly work, it will need to have both the attack  and attack preparation times increased, and some form of cancel attack without having to wait for the full attack time

[Mutsu_Man]

I am not gonna lie. Seeing the "CV is fine", "gitgud" crowd cry tears even before this is in testing is a) very predictable and b) quite hilarious. 

Cant say I care that much anymore but maybe "GITGUD" ? 

[ArIskandir]

27 minutes ago, Asym said:

The rules of complexity are screaming "DANGER WIll Robinson, DANGER"

Indeed, that's imo another big issue... complexity keeps escalating, skill disparity will only but increase.

28 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

“Travel mode” where planes run full speed and are immune to standard AA fire but can’t spot surface ships sounds a lot like planes cruising at higher altitudes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is implemented as a mirror reflection of subs running at depth (where they have limited spotting but are immune to standard sources of damage), with “attack mode” being simply the standard CV movement mechanics we currently have, but with nerfed speed. CVs would be forced to choose between strike speed (“travel mode”) or spotting utility (“attack mode”) as they move to strike their targets. That seems like a much more rational approach than limiting CV spotting to only the attack run.

Very unlikely interpretation imo, as it will undo the overall objective of limiting spotting. Attack mode by necessity must be time limited. 

[Arcus_Aesopi]

23 minutes ago, Asym said:

Hmmmmm.  Did you watch the Twitch broadcast yesterday?  Those two spokes-people (pronoun correct???) were as nervous as a Cat in a Dog pound;  and, everything they said was a facade;  inside of a narrative defined by obfuscation; where the word dissembling screams at you.....  My impression was that of sincere uncertainty bordering on panic. 

My concern:  that dissimilar weapons (carrier and subs) can't fit into the small, time compressed maps we have.....  The rules of complexity are screaming "DANGER WIll Robinson, DANGER"...... (to me because I did/do this kind of work.....figuring out what complexity does to established cultures and markets....which, is Asymmetrical Systems theory !) 

Subs and Carriers aren't "bad"....it's just that their "combat power" exceeds the math of LOS surface combat vessels.  History showed us that in 1925 and, in actual combat practice, dissimilar weapons proved that the LOS combat vessels were "out classed".  A Bi-plane doomed the Bismark....  HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse were the first major combatants sunk by air....  So, if History actually outlines what dissimilar weapons did to change History, why can we expect anything else in this game....?  They are dissimilar and don't/can't fit into small, time compressed maps no matter how hard anyone tries....  Just won't fit....

The solutions:  larger maps.  Why?  Because, they slow down the dissimilarity, elongate the surface actions to allow counter measures to take effect...   Missiles ended the Carriers planes ability to fight in LOS of surface ships.....  Missiles are the next step and if Carriers and Sub can't fit on our maps now.......imagine what missiles will do....  Here again, the Laws of Complexity (LOC) can't be avoided........it's inevitable.  If you try, one word describes that:  Sisyphus...  Does the game feel as if we are pushing a heavy bolder up a steep grade???  Yep.  LOC are in play - lol.

They really were nervous...  I was thinking the same thing.  I especially liked that the manager didn't WANT to get the Kitakami in spite of having more resources than I've ever seen on an account 😄

I think you've got the right ideas about the problems of shoving dissimilar tech into the space limited game.  Making it feel "rewarding" to play is always a challenge, especially when WG is trying to squeeze their customers for every penny.

 

[Nevermore135]

6 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Very unlikely interpretation imo, as it will undo the overall objective of limiting spotting. Attack mode by necessity must be time limited. 

The problem with limiting spotting to only the attack run is that doing such would limit CV spotting to the point of effectively eliminating it. I am nowhere close to what many might call a “CV apologist,” etc, and even I can recognize that such a change would be too extreme.

The way I see it, what was presented has to be a half-baked idea (possibly explaining the nervousness of the presenters) because there are so many obvious ripple effects of such major changes.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Nevermore135