Is the patch today the CV changes?

[Unlooky]

19 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If you're going to claim it isn't rocket science, then how about providing *your* solution.

If you're not going to provide a solution, then you're only complaining.
Which is fine, by itself. 
It's also sometimes known as venting and ranting and being a voice in the wilderness.
But, it boils down to you saying that you didn't get what you wanted or expected and want others (specifically the game developers) to listen to you via psychic osmosis and drop everything else in order to cater to you, in my opinion.

And the game developers are also supposed to do what you want without you paying them, maybe?  🙂 

I do not feel strongly about most maps in the game besides Ocean, Okinawa, and Two Brothers. 

All these maps I named are unenjoyable to play specifically of their lack of usable island cover (Ocean, Okinawa South) or in the case of Two Brothers, the terrain artificially slows down games to the point where you're practically playing two separate matches. 

 There are other maps have areas which I think could use a rework (Trap Southwest) but are for the most part fine.

I didn't start the topic on map design and I certainly don't think I've been "venting and ranting." 

I've mentioned specifically my issues with maps in all of my previous posts. It does not require a psychic to tell what I want changed.  

[Unlooky]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

'Griefing' is deliberately acting against the rules of the game.

Merely playing a CV or sub is NOT 'griefing'.

Stop throwing around emotionally charged phrases in an attempt to pretend other people are evil for not sharing your vision for the game.

For shame, you should know better.

Quite interesting how the top 3 definitions do not include anything about violating rules. 

Pedantics aside, it's also extremely interesting to see your reaction to a commonly used slang term within the community for how CVs interact with other ships. 

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Perhaps you should stop being so condescending (phrases like 'CV defenders') and actually start listening.

I play CVs a lot. I fully acknowledge that CV gameplay is OP. I also understand that WG doesn't care.

I have nothing but condescension for those who believe CV gameplay is balanced as is. To claim otherwise requires either a severe lack of understanding of the game, or denial of reality. I'm not really interested in discussing CVs with individuals who cannot understand this fact. 

Did I make any erroneous statement in the previous reply? 

Edited Saturday at 10:40 PM by Unlooky

[Wolfswetpaws]

11 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Quite interesting how the top 3 definitions do not include anything about violating rules. 

Pedantics aside, it's also extremely interesting to see your reaction to a commonly used slang term within the community for how CVs interact with other ships. 

I have nothing but condescension for those who believe CV gameplay is balanced as is. To claim otherwise requires either a severe lack of understanding of the game, or denial of reality. I'm not really interested in discussing CVs with individuals who cannot understand this fact. 

Did I make any erroneous statement in the previous reply? 

A CV player trying to sink you is simply doing their job.
It's every player's job to sink the opposing ships.
Getting annoyed about it is a *you* thing.
There's nothing personal necessary in order to play to sink the opposition ships.
No need to take it personally.  🙂 

[clammboy]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

A CV player trying to sink you is simply doing their job.
It's every player's job to sink the opposing ships.
Getting annoyed about it is a *you* thing.
There's nothing personal necessary in order to play to sink the opposition ships.
No need to take it personally.  🙂 

I don't get annoyed at the player but I do get annoyed at CVs and subs from time to time. Any class of ship that can stalk you with out your seeing it or being able to shoot back does that to people. DDs occasional can do this but for the most part you have to have respect for a good DD player.  He's usually out there with his butt on the line where you can blab him if he makes a mistake. 

CV's are at the corner of a map just rolling out waves of planes one after another at the weakest or most isolated ships and all you can do is dodge or press your crappy AA sector button that does nothing. And half the time you dodge you get blapped by the enemy BB. 

Now to make it clear I am not totally anti CV. I am just trying to point out why some people hate them and subs and to be honest it should be pretty easy to understand some peoples anger. I don't think CV and sub players should act so shocked people don't like them. After all you play them you play against them so you should know they can cause you to go loco. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

57 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

have nothing but condescension for those who believe CV gameplay is balanced as is.

I do not claim CV gameplay is balanced.

I claim that none of World of Warships gameplay is balanced.

[Unlooky]

25 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I do not claim CV gameplay is balanced.

I claim that none of World of Warships gameplay is balanced.

I know. That wasn't directed at you. 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Again, I've read your words, carefully.

I get the impression that we're simply not seeing eye-to-eye or we have different expectations.

I don't have a problem with CV's & Submarines and don't mind what they bring to the game. 
I like the extra capabilities on the battlefield (or battle-ocean?  battle-waters?  Whatever.)
I simply accept those capabilities and plan for them accordingly.

You, seem reluctant to live with them, from what I can discern.  
Not judging, just trying to be clear in my communication with you and my understanding of the situation.

Another game that comes to mind, for sake of board-game comparisons, is "Stratego".
Because the identitiy of the pieces is hidden at the start of the game and is revealed by contact with the opposition and by observation of a pieces movement (or lack thereof, in the case of a "bomb" piece).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratego

Like Chess, Stratego gives each player one move per turn.  So, it's not as dynamic as WOWs.

Anyway, each team in WOWs gets roughly equivalent ships on their team rosters at the start of the match.
While people may quibble about the consumable comparisions (radar, hyrdo, and etc.) and the hybrid ships, WOWs has published its matchmaking guidelines in its "How it works" series of youtube videos.  So, people are able to plan accordingly if they take the time to do the research.
 

My whole point in all this is just ...... I wished this game was a tad bit better. I really wished this game came down to skill and experience and ability to "read opponents", foresee moves etc, execute great pushes and flankings yourself and actually Outplay the other side, also more thinking, but instead we got some OP/Unbalanced classes, gimmicks and funny buttons .... and sexy girl captains with big bazookas.

This game has such big potential, but it (WG) just takes the easy/lazy way to a quick buck at every time. I understand that this is what WG and the "Silent majority" wants so I then adjust by now days mostly playing OP Premiums like Smolensk, Kamikaze etc or BS classes like CVs and Subs that puts me to sleep while I get first place and 3000 Base XP for a game while eating a sandwich and talking to my wife.

But we can all dream of something else, and my OG post still stands. (Wouldn't it be great if teams actually saw value and protected their DDs in this "team based" game?)

This game would be great if there was no CV and subs and I will tell you why.

1. DDs are enough spotters, but they aren't "God mode" like CVs and Subs and like some 30% BB babies out these who thinks "DDs are OP" because they cant do any WASD hacks for 20 min.
2. Unlike CVs and Subs DDs has plenty of counterplay (but can still perform spotting mission). We have enemy DDs, radar thru islands, hydro thru islands etc etc .
3. IF Subs and CVs actually got deleted from this game the cruisers and BBs would actually for ONCE value the DDs on their team and actually push in and support them in game modes like 3 cap dom mode, Arms Race, Airships etc etc, and not just take them for granted and sit on 10-line Screaming "Intelligence data" all game. If DDs was the only thing spotting and they died, BBs would have nothing to shoot at!!! Which means no more BB camping, everyone push in and help .... you know like this "team based" game is supposed to be.
4. More communication between different surface classes DDs and BBs.
5. Right now DDs are the most expendable class there is. No ones cares if they die going for a buff in Arms race .... you have you're CV guy flying planes all game. You will probably loose (because you have no DDs) but at least you have spotting so you can break that 100 K damage wall in youre Yamato loss.....

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, clammboy said:

I don't get annoyed at the player but I do get annoyed at CVs and subs from time to time. Any class of ship that can stalk you with out your seeing it or being able to shoot back does that to people. DDs occasional can do this but for the most part you have to have respect for a good DD player.  He's usually out there with his butt on the line where you can blab him if he makes a mistake. 

CV's are at the corner of a map just rolling out waves of planes one after another at the weakest or most isolated ships and all you can do is dodge or press your crappy AA sector button that does nothing. And half the time you dodge you get blapped by the enemy BB. 

Now to make it clear I am not totally anti CV. I am just trying to point out why some people hate them and subs and to be honest it should be pretty easy to understand some peoples anger. I don't think CV and sub players should act so shocked people don't like them. After all you play them you play against them so you should know they can cause you to go loco. 

I've read sentiments like yours for a long time in various places, such as in-game battle-chat, on the old forums and on this forum.

I don't share the "go loco" feeling.  Instead, I feel it is a "challenge accepted" situation.  🙂 
 
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I wished this game was a tad bit better.

That ^^^ is understandable.

You want "better".  I would like "better".  And many others would like "better", too.  🙂 
Funny part is, each of us has a personal notion of what "better" would be. 
Not all of them are quite the same, though some are close enough for a figurative game of horseshoes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoes_(game)

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

26 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

My whole point in all this is just ...... I wished this game was a tad bit better. I really wished this game came down to skill and experience and ability to "read opponents", foresee moves etc, execute great pushes and flankings yourself and actually Outplay the other side, also more thinking, but instead we got some OP/Unbalanced classes, gimmicks and funny buttons .... and sexy girl captains with big bazookas.

This game has such big potential, but it (WG) just takes the easy/lazy way to a quick buck at every time. I understand that this is what WG and the "Silent majority" wants so I then adjust by now days mostly playing OP Premiums like Smolensk, Kamikaze etc or BS classes like CVs and Subs that puts me to sleep while I get first place and 3000 Base XP for a game while eating a sandwich and talking to my wife.

But we can all dream of something else, and my OG post still stands. (Wouldn't it be great if teams actually saw value and protected their DDs in this "team based" game?)

This game would be great if there was no CV and subs and I will tell you why.

1. DDs are enough spotters, but they aren't "God mode" like CVs and Subs and like some 30% BB babies out these who thinks "DDs are OP" because they cant do any WASD hacks for 20 min.
2. Unlike CVs and Subs DDs has plenty of counterplay (but can still perform spotting mission). We have enemy DDs, radar thru islands, hydro thru islands etc etc .
3. IF Subs and CVs actually got deleted from this game the cruisers and BBs would actually for ONCE value the DDs on their team and actually push in and support them in game modes like 3 cap dom mode, Arms Race, Airships etc etc, and not just take them for granted and sit on 10-line Screaming "Intelligence data" all game. If DDs was the only thing spotting and they died, BBs would have nothing to shoot at!!! Which means no more BB camping, everyone push in and help .... you know like this "team based" game is supposed to be.
4. More communication between different surface classes DDs and BBs.
5. Right now DDs are the most expendable class there is. No ones cares if they die going for a buff in Arms race .... you have you're CV guy flying planes all game. You will probably loose (because you have no DDs) but at least you have spotting so you can break that 100 K damage wall in youre Yamato loss.....

I'll raise a glass in honor of wanting the game to be better, and WG to not take the lazy way every time.

Amen to that.

[clammboy]

35 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I've read sentiments like yours for a long time in various places, such as in-game battle-chat, on the old forums and on this forum.

I don't share the "go loco" feeling.  Instead, I feel it is a "challenge accepted" situation.  🙂 
 
 

Well to be honest I don't play them and you play them a lot in randoms so our perspectives are different. You play a lot of different ships in coop but in randoms lots of subs DD's and CVs. I am a BB guy some CA much harder to deal with CVs and subs in randoms. 

Also you are like one of my favorite guys on the forums along with Grasshopper and a few others please don't be upset with me.  

Edited Sunday at 01:50 AM by clammboy

[MnemonScarlet]

On 6/28/2024 at 8:35 PM, Unlooky said:

It almost certainly just become two walls of smoke with radar cruisers inside ready to stop any ideas of aggressive play facing each other, and the winner being whichever team had the better blind torpedo salvoes. This is basically how open areas are played in competitive, so we have a pretty good idea. 

Let's not pretend it would be the stale sweaty experience it is in comp, not with this playerbase. In Randoms it is almost never even remotely like this, and certainly not so gridlocked nothing can happen aside from lucky torpedo hits. I used to play on Ocean all the time when it was more common in rotation, including at high tiers, and I can only remember seeing something remotely like this just a few times. Generally when MM rolled up two teams who were both full of sweatybois who actually knew what they were doing (rare af even then).

Not that I'm advocating it to be in more common rotation - this playerbase mostly can't handle it (why it was all but removed to begin with years ago). And the one really big issue with it, is it is terrible for cruisers, since they're generally at the bad intersection of the spike damage/armor/vision area between the surface classes. Ocean doesn't give cruisers a break for the most part.

What I'd prefer is maps being more like New Dawn and a few others, with islands interspersed over more of the map so you don't just have the obvious 'go here for actual gameplay variance' island clusters and the wide boring expanse of 'open water to do donuts in while you shoot at people playing the couple middle map island clusters' that makes so many of these maps' matches so boring and predictable. Aside from you know, the coinflip of which team decides to win harder and throw better than the other. Which you cannot really attribute to the maps.

4 hours ago, Unlooky said:

 

Also, I'd highlight #3 of that one personally. CV definitely is a cheap tactic type, and subs' engagement loop revolves around playing like that if they don't want to just be useless free kills.

Edited Sunday at 02:40 AM by MnemonScarlet

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

Amazing how a thread about an update (that was just the change from 1 of the D-Day event phases to the next phase btw) turned into a CV/sub rant thread just because of the assumed reason for the update being changes to those ship types that aren't scheduled to occur for many months in the future.

Edited Sunday at 03:07 AM by IfYouSeeKhaos

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

'Grieving' is deliberately acting against the rules of the game.

 

4 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Quite interesting how the top 3 definitions do not include anything about violating rules. 

Pedantics aside, it's also extremely interesting to see your reaction to a commonly used slang term within the community for how CVs interact with other ships. 

I have nothing but condescension for those who believe CV gameplay is balanced as is. To claim otherwise requires either a severe lack of understanding of the game, or denial of reality. I'm not really interested in discussing CVs with individuals who cannot understand this fact. 

Did I make any erroneous statement in the previous reply? 

"The game" is WOWS...we aren't playing "the dictionary"...so dictionary definitions of the term don't apply to "the rules" of the individual game (in this case WOWS) you are playing.

Per the WOWS EULA actual griefing is against the rules.

Thought the "preventing others from enjoying the game" may apply...your 2nd highlighted definition is unrelated to this subject because you aren't being "repeatedly killed...over & over"...just repeatedly attacked over & over...until you are killed one time...each battle...

For that to apply you would need to be harassed by the same CV player in multiple games over & over & the MM just doesn't allow that to happen.

As far as the "immersion" in the 1st highlighted definition...in a WWII based game having planes attacking your ship is considered immersion...in fact your experience seems to be more "immersive" than most peoples.

Hate the way CVs & subs are implemented personally but neither of those definitions of grieving apply as the CVs that grief you are different CVs (other than a few low population late night examples that are still rare) each game & not 1 person continually killing just you...as those examples of grieving suggest.

Edited Sunday at 03:33 AM by IfYouSeeKhaos

[Unlooky]

58 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

 

"The game" is WOWS...we aren't playing "the dictionary"...so dictionary definitions of the term don't apply to "the rules" of the individual game (in this case WOWS) you are playing.

Per the WOWS EULA actual griefing is against the rules.

Thought the "preventing others from enjoying the game" may apply...your 2nd highlighted definition is unrelated to this subject because you aren't being "repeatedly killed...over & over"...just repeatedly attacked over & over...until you are killed one time...each battle...

For that to apply you would need to be harassed by the same CV player in multiple games over & over & the MM just doesn't allow that to happen.

As far as the "immersion" in the 1st highlighted definition...in a WWII based game having planes attacking your ship is considered immersion...in fact your experience seems to be more "immersive" than most peoples.

Hate the way CVs & subs are implemented personally but neither of those definitions of grieving apply as the CVs that grief you are different CVs (other than a few low population late night examples that are still rare) each game & not 1 person continually killing just you...as those examples of grieving suggest.

I didn't know Wargaming created their own definition of griefing. Griefing is very specifically an online gaming term so I'm not sure why you're acting like the other definitions are irrelevant. 

Regardless, it's quite clear all of you know exactly what I'm talking about and this incredibly pedantic argument is a massive waste of time for all parties involved. 

Edited Sunday at 04:30 AM by Unlooky

[Unlooky]

1 hour ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Let's not pretend it would be the stale sweaty experience it is in comp, not with this playerbase.

My interpretation of the question is "What would happen if we had CB format on Ocean" so I answered under that premise. Definitely agree that this would have no bearing on Randoms and other unorganized modes. If this was done via a brawl with random teammates, then I agree it would pretty much just look like regular Ocean randoms. 

Edited Sunday at 04:34 AM by Unlooky

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

So much blah blah here. The full spectrum of emotions and hyperbole.

 

I have an easy solution to everything blah blahed about here.

Get rid of ALL active spotting for the team. Mini map spotting ONLY. You can only see for yourself. This means direct spotting means inside the other ships detection range, or inside the other ships gun bloom for those 20 seconds, and then ONLY when you have direct line of sight to that enemy ship.

 

Surely this will solve all the passive game play complaints.

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

I didn't know Wargaming created their own definition of griefing. Griefing is very specifically an online gaming term so I'm not sure why you're acting like the other definitions are irrelevant. 

Regardless, it's quite clear all of you know exactly what I'm talking about and this incredibly pedantic argument is a massive waste of time for all parties involved. 

I didn't say WG created their own definition...

I said the actual definition of griefing is against WG rules...

But CV/sub interactions don't actually fall under those definitions you provided as I clearly demonstrated...other than the 1 example I clarified of "preventing the player from enjoying the game"...

But any other ship type can cause that same effect also.

[Ferdinand_Max]

13 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Not in my experience. Passive play happens with or without planes and subs.

At high tiers maybe, but I can't speak for these.

But at tiers I have played both before (up to and including 8.) and now (up to and including 7), there is a noticeable difference in player behavior when CVs (and now subs) are present and when they are not.

Sure, technically, passive play does happen both with or without planes and subs. But there is a difference in both frequency and duration of the passive play.

Reason is basically counterspotting. It is possible to predict where destroyer will be and push him away. This then can provide a window of no spotting to cross exposed areas of water to reach the next island.

Sub can simply submerge and then pop up again, while CV aircraft don't give a shit about the terrain. That on its own eliminates  a lot of the pushing / counterpushing and brawling opportunities.

13 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is only true if there are ships available to fire at and hit what is spotted.

Plus CV spotting is not continuous and is of generally limited duration.

If there are no planes, the team with the lower detection destroyers has a near permanent advantage in the vision control game...which is also broken.

See above - DD spotting can be denied by other destroyers (gunboat DDs are specifically designed for that purpose) and even by other surface ships. Gaps in islands are often not sufficient for a DD to sneak past even a battleship, which means that a BB player with half a brain (a rare occurence, I know) will have at least a general idea of where the destroyer is, and thus be able to form some sort of a counterplay. When I play a destroyer, I have to be very careful about my positioning and concealment distance lest I get cornered with no way out. And that is true even when enemy team has only battleships surviving. When I am spotted by an enemy destroyer, I can generally determine where he is simply by looking at the map and taking into account DDs concealment distance.

This seems to be much less of an issue for a submarine, and CV? CV doesn't give a shit. CV attacks can be mitigated (in theory) but there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about the spotting.

Certainly, map design is the core issue. But in the end, it is the interplay of various elements that creates gameplay, so you shouldn't ignore less relevant or even peripheral issues.

14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is all mostly map design and ship concealment ranges based.

Planes expose the broken concealment system most visibly...but they are not the root cause.

Planes basically make concealment ranges irrelevant, so I really don't get how you can say they are not a major problem.

They are not the root cause perhaps, but they are a major element of the overall problem.

14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Removing CVs without reworking concealment just returns us to the broken concealment problems from 0.7.

It is not a solution.

Map redesign and a rework of concealment might work.

Agreed, but CV spotting is a major issue.

Aerial spotting makes a lot of plays basically unviable, and more open the map the greater the problem becomes.

Maybe introduce cloud cover and similar issues as a sort of aerial "terrain" ships could use to hide?

14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

WarGaming does not balance the game by that measure. They balance by looking at how often the ship is played, and by how much damage / kills it does.

The idea of it's interplay with the team or other ships is only considered for the design of the gimmick of the ship with an eye towards memes.

WG does not consider counterplay concepts when managing this game. That is more work than they want to do.

Oh, I am well aware of how WG manages the game. That is not an issue here.

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 hours ago, clammboy said:

please don't be upset with me.  

I'm not upset.  We've known each other for some time, on two forums.  🙂 
Like @ArIskandir, I value a civil exchange of perspectives.  
Also, one of my personal philosophies is not to fault someone for doing what they feel is best or expressing their truths.
I may or may not agree with them, but I can't fault someone for being honest.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

So much blah blah here. The full spectrum of emotions and hyperbole.

 

I have an easy solution to everything blah blahed about here.

Get rid of ALL active spotting for the team. Mini map spotting ONLY. You can only see for yourself. This means direct spotting means inside the other ships detection range, or inside the other ships gun bloom for those 20 seconds, and then ONLY when you have direct line of sight to that enemy ship.

 

Surely this will solve all the passive game play complaints.

I figure it is food for thought.
I'd be willing to try "mini-map only" team-spotting.
Has it been tested in the past?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

So much blah blah here. The full spectrum of emotions and hyperbole.

 

I have an easy solution to everything blah blahed about here.

Get rid of ALL active spotting for the team. Mini map spotting ONLY. You can only see for yourself. This means direct spotting means inside the other ships detection range, or inside the other ships gun bloom for those 20 seconds, and then ONLY when you have direct line of sight to that enemy ship.

 

Surely this will solve all the passive game play complaints.

I'd be willing to try a variation of this...where spotting for teammates exists, but you can't lock on to any target you aren't personally spotting.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

This seems to be much less of an issue for a submarine, and CV? CV doesn't give a shit. CV attacks can be mitigated (in theory) but there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about the spotting.

While it does depend upon a player having "half a brain", the competition for "vision control" between two or more CV's involves using fighters and AA to shoot-down the other team's planes which are performing spotting.

The matchmaker provides each team with an equal number of CV's at the start of the battle.
Granted, after spawning, the match will depend upon how well each team member plays.

So, for CV's, deploying fighter planes which can spot the opposing team while not getting too quickly destroyed is one option.
Another option is to use one of the attack-capable squadrons (rocket planes, bombers, torpedo planes) to loiter close enough to spot the opposing ship(s).
And, there is the occasional "accidental" spotting that gets done while flying towards a previously designated target.
Example:  Torpedo planes enroute towards a battleship (one with half-a-brain, go figure) fly over or near enough to detect a different ship that was otherwise undetected.  "Whoops?  Where'd that AA Cruiser come from?!?"
I think you get the idea.  🙂 

Anyway, just as there is parity within matchmaking for other ship types, there is parity for CV's.
Some players learn to play CV's better than others.
The good CV's will keep their hulls moving and remain as close to the action as possible (to shorten their squadron's flight-time to the target) without getting spotted too much or too often.  (Side-note, my Kaga was sunk by a Shikishima, once upon a time.  So, yeah, there are risks with this sort of thing.)

If a CV sails their hull to a farthest corner of a map, they're likely increasing the time it takes the planes to fly to where they can scout for opponents and attack them.  Which means that CV is going to have a lower damage-per-minute output compared with the CV that is closer to the action.

The other aspect is how well they can hit targets.
Granted, hitting targets is every ships' job.  They may use different ordnance, but good aim makes a difference.
A player who misses too many of their attacks upon targets is arguably ineffective.
Frankly, I don't care what ship a person plays, if they not hitting targets or spotting targets so the team can hit the targets, then damage output race will be won by good marksmanship (all other things being equal).

As the Rifleman's Creed mentions, only hits count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

Aerial spotting makes a lot of plays basically unviable,

You were hoping to sneak a Yamato past a CV task-force during a re-enactment of Operation Ten-Go?  😉 

It's possible, if the weather cooperates.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

You were hoping to sneak a Yamato past a CV task-force during a re-enactment of Operation Ten-Go?  😉 

It's possible, if the weather cooperates.

Or the enemy fleet is controlled by Admiral Halsey, as against Operation Sho-Go 1...

😉