42 thoughts on “WoWs Developer Diaries – Aircraft Carriers

    • i have a strong feeling this will be a complete failure just like WOW.

      Jingles just created some controversy by picking WT over WG if he could only pick one because WT planes r so much better than WG and the tanks are very good too albiet not as good as WG.

  1. After seeing planes taking off from stationary carrier on flat sea I’ve seen enough.

    Something says me that carriers will be even more clickers than arty in WoT.

    • I can see it now, Carriers are so OP that Cruisers (both heavy and light) and Battleships are rendered useless and everyone that isn’t playing Carriers can either pick (fast) Torpedo-destroyers or GTFO. First carrier is tier 4 or something though, so we probably get some fun games till we meet them. Poor low tier (Kongou?) Class battleships that meet the first carriers every game they are in while being not to fast to say the least. Granted, some of the low tier battleships were classified ”fast” battleships but I doubt that would save them from the carriers wrath, big easy targets in real life big easy targets in game…. fuck balance.

      Currently carriers are being implemented so alpha/beta-testers haven’t spoken out on them yet because they simply aren’t playable yet.

    • It has been said that the higher the battleship tier, the better AA defenses it will have, so, if BBs stick together, they can form an impenetrable 20mm-cal. sky net

      • In reality they were terrible against AIR targets do to being gigantic easy to hit targets. Destroyers AA guns were sufficient against any aircraft and destroyers were actually used purposefully as AA platforms in most cases over battleships and heavy cruisers alike.

        My point being that I expect improved AA at higher tiers will be ”less fucking awful”

        There’s a reason Destroyers are the most successful class of modern ships. ( other than aircraft carriers )

        • my god ur clueless, destroyers successful at what? scouting and screening.

          planes and aircraft carriers won the war with japan. the army and marine soldiers and the rest of the navy were all just support.

          lastly, destroyers were small and maneuverable and were NOT any kind of priority target which is why they were not hit often not because of AA firepower which was anemic. the more modern battleships in WWII, the ones completed after Pearl had so many AA guns they threw up a hail of lead nothing could fly through.

          • Anaemic for a single destroyer, but destroyers outnumbered all other ship types because they were quicker to deploy and build. Destroyers were deployed in AA detachments safeguarding motherships quite often, some were rearmed specifically for this purpose.

            Cruisers were useful as motherships for destroyers but toward the end of the war destroyers were easily capable of taking down heavy cruisers, in part do to better training but also more sufficient better armament. Some cruisers however were practically (normal) battleship size which wasn’t optimal. Cruisers are still second line vessels while the destroyers took the front, the destroyers of needed to due to their armaments but they were also more expendable. Destroyers simply were financially more interesting due to cost build time and performance. A lot of cruisers barely performed better than a couple of destroyers in regards to AA capability due to armament, basically it depended on whether how much it dedicated to AA. Sure an high AA cruiser was nice to have but AA in WWII wasn’t too effective to begin with and the cruiser could mount bigger anti ship cannons instead of better AA which for most cruisers was a preferred layout and therefore they were only marginally better than the more common AA equipped destroyer.

            The worst were the heavier Battleships which in the end were cannonfoder for carriers and submarines and simply too expensive to run for the benefits they had. Weaponary was already catching up to armour at this time and submarines and torpedo destroyers invalided the use ridiculous armour partially. The low cruising speeds of (most) battleships also hindered their effectiveness much like heavy tanks were effected by low top speed on land. They were great as defensive measures but offensive operations were hindered by the low speed.

        • because of the modern weaponry, try build today a battleship and arm with the most modern attack/def weaponry, lot more fire power than a destro, but they don’t do it because of the size, it maybe can shoot down missile with the CIWS maybe even bombs, but i don’t think they can shoot down shells from artilerry units
          , air defense? imagine how much RIM-66 or RIM-174 anti-air mssile could be placed on a battleship? and imagine the systems what could it carry. i think they just don’t build because of the size the ammount of money what it needs, and i think its easy target for a submarine (don’t know the destroyers have any defense system to deflect a guided torpedo attack)

          • It’s mostly because battleships are about as cost effective as a large carrier with a low engagement range, in other words, not very cost effective.

            The speed of a battleship in this era would obviously be better albeit presumably still undesirably low, but the running costs still would be atrocious and it would of course be bait for a submarine. The point of larger calibre cannons against destroyers and cruisers that we use today is debatable as well.

            Though it could be used as a ballistic missile launcher in addition to the traditional armaments + AA missiles, but what exactly would it have to over over the carrier + few cruisers + lot’s of destroyer ( + hunting submarines + ballistic missile submarine’s ) combo we use today?

    • You can shoot down airplanes. Other CVs can shoot down airplanes too. You can’t shoot down random clicks from clickers.

  2. If they don’t give it “3D C&C level of control” over airplanes (including micromanagement of targets,altitude loadouts etc.) then it will be boring and stupid.

    I would also like to see submarines.

    • Would be ridiculously OP, they already said it wasn’t going to happen. A sub could stay submerged during the entire game, ridiculously hard to spot for those with sonar if in silent mode while practically unstoppable for everyone without sonar even when cruising at full speed. We could use subsurface mines but that would be partially useless against more experienced sub users and the time of using them would be very random since you can’t spot the enemy and releasing them on spawning is dumb.

      There were plenty of ships without sonar and lot’s with terrible sonar, so it would be broken

      • “I would also like to see submarines.”

        Good thing you aren’t in charge of anything.

        Fuck submarines. They ruined NF, they’d ruin this game too.

        For submarines to be effective in a fleet engagement scenario, they have to be buffed to ridiculous degrees and have to be made completely unrealistic. In reality, a submarine in a fleet engagement was dead. Which is why they didn’t engage in fleet actions.

  3. Aircraft carriers will be the artillery of World of Warships, making their planes drop bombs on themselves the moment the game is lost.. etc.

  4. don’t forget that early-to-midtiers carriers will be small and carry few planes. They won’t influence the battle as much as the high tiers carriers will do.

  5. People will call Japanese carriers (Taiho especially) “OP as hell” because they’re able to go as fast as 60-65kph if I remember correctly.

    In a strategic naval game called “Pacific Storm”, Taiho was the death sentence of many US ships, when combined with a formidable CAG.

    • 33 knots.

      Pretty much every late-tier CV will be just as fast, within a knot or two. The Midway-class carriers are just as fast (33 knots) and the Yorktowns could do 32.5. The Lexington and Saratoga, which were originally designed as battlecruisers, could do 33.25. The Essex-class ships could do 32.7 knots.

      So yeah, most larger carriers were fairly close in top speed.

      The real scary thing is, you’ll also have battleships and battlecruisers that’re just as fast, or faster. A lightly-loaded Iowa could do 35-37 knots…

  6. That WG is not including submarines leaves one to wonder whether or not their developers have the ability to properly implement the 3D properties of submarine warfare along with the rest of the game play.

    • The fact that submarine warfare never existed in the type of environment the game will take place in means they made the right choice.

      In a fleet engagement, where the submarine would be forced to rise to periscope depth to be of any use at all, it could easily be spotted from the air and dealt with before it even became a threat to anyone or anything.

      And that’s why submarines were never used as part of the greater fleet action.


      Had that been a WWII submarine being spotted by an aircraft, it wouldn’t live long. For submarines to be viable in this type of game, they have to be buffed to ridiculously unrealistic degrees. See NavyField.

      Nobody wants that.