Meanwhile, In World of Warships…

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3,922 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)

Carrier Rebalance! Submarines! SUBMARINES! Time to deliver my thoughts on the subject, at long last.


System Specs: Core i7 4.3Ghz CPU, 32GB DDR4 RAM, nVidia GTX1080 8GB GDDR5 GPU, running at 1920×1080 resolution


  1. The most loyal salt miners ASSEMBLE!

  2. Jingles, Flamu shared an article where a WG exec said “Oh yeah we’re going to add submarines in 2019 because we’re running out of ships to add to the game”

    • +S Candor well there’s still not even one Italian line, you can still add Swedish ships, Spanish ships, Portuguese, Dutch and there are many more British ships.. Plus at some time its not good to add more shiplines because at some point you have too many of them.

    • FirestreakRodimusPr

      they’re running out of Russian & German ships to add to the game is what he meant. Gotta have more Russian vessels in the game after all.

    • They already are nearing that point, there really are no prototype capital ships, so you can’t really have earlier versions of something to fill out a line.
      the US, Japan and GB are the three most diverse navies of the periods, most of the other nations **particularly the Russians* are already basically paper ships, and the Pan Asians [Or Taiwan] are just Japanese and American ships modified to fit new requirments.

      Carriers in particular get hard to add, because at a certain point only two nations really fielded *BIG* carriers during WW2, the Midway class and the Japense counterparts, everybody else still either had assault carriers or where well past WW2 by the time they got carriers big enough.

      and if you run that timeline out farther, the US get’s super carriers by 1955, Forrestal-class of Super Carriers.

    • Александр Воробьёв

      running out?? Not Italy No battlecruisers sub-lines, only USA light-heavy cruiser diversion

    • “by Freedom’s Sword.”

  3. Never left Pornhub so fast in my entire life.

  4. Anyone remember trolled us last year during April Fool by putting a Sub in our port, a Captain named RussianBias and Rank Aquafarmer. How the tables have turned.

  5. Jingles, WG said in the Q&A about subs that if they run out of air they would surface automatically.

    • That may be how they are choosing to do it for the event implementation, but that doesn’t mean that it will be how it ultimately works. Taking damage while submerged too long would add an extra dimension of player skill and decision making, and is probably a better long term solution. They might also want to consider captain skills and consumables as a way to allow sub captains to choose between the 2 methods, even making the ability to stay submerged for damage a feature of higher tier subs. Forcing auto surfacing is a good way to test other aspects of how subs work, or don’t, by putting everyone on a level playing field initially

    • The submarine gameplay elements described in this video are exact copies of how the game “Steel Ocean” handles subs in the game.

      Subs in that game are (at least at low tier) pretty underpowered.

      Their torps are slow, they have a long minimum arming distance, they maneuver extremely slowly under water, very limited surface armament, every ship in the game has depth charges, and they get detected relatively easily.

      I dont expect this to be much more of a novelty, but if it does get implemented, at least they are all ready basing it off of mechanics that are functioning in another game with some balance.

      Even if Steel Ocean is a shit game thats dead in all but the Chinese server.

  6. They answered a few of these questions on their live stream. Like you auto surface when running of air,. There’s 3 levels you can go, surface, Periscope and submerged to a set depth so no crush depth. No deck guns. But of course anything can change.

  7. Time to break out the ARP Iona Submarine commander from that event.

  8. Actually Jingles, they DID say what will happen if you stay for too long under water. If you run out of oxygen you will be forced to reserface. And as far as crush depth is concerned they said that no submarine can go deep enough to reach said depth, so that’s not even a feature in the game

  9. I am noticing a pattern.
    War thunder- Helicopters for an April fools day joke.
    Years later- introduced to the game.
    World of Warships- “Leaks” submarine for April fools day.
    Years later- tries to introduce submarines.

    • World of Warcraft did the same thing with the Pandaria Expansion and the Pandaren Race.

    • D Gray, whilst what you say about CVs vs DDs more might be true, that also might be a good thing in some ways.

      I play a lot of DDs, so I’m coming at it from the other side:

      A good CV player can totally shut down enemy DD players just by perma-spotting them. It’s annoying as hell. Playing a DD, you need to stay unspotted to get into positions from which you can mount an attack on enemy ships. If the enemy CV decides to keep you lit with aircraft, you just cannot play the game.

      It instantly becomes suicidal try to get into weapons range of a target. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Can’t outrun aircraft, can’t shoot them down. All the while every ship in range is hailing HE all around you. The only thing that helps is to run away into the AA umbrella of friendly ships.

      The practical upshot of that, of course, being that at the cost of just a little attention and the time of one squadron, the CV has completely negated the ability of the DD to contribute to their team. That seems slightly imbalanced to me.

    • meh the facts that Helicopter flight model is broken and failed i think they trying to make people come back play it
      if you dont believe me go check how helictoper work in DCS World or real life compares to WT helicopter you see a big different
      but well it fun.

    • Gamesghost they fixed it and i think they used the flight model from a semi simulation game they had in 2010 but i only had one fisics model even tho it had 3 models in game (it was a good game from what i remember)

  10. The submarine is forced to the surface when it runs out of O2. It will automatically come to the surface.

    • +Stone Rayven as did the ww2 era vessel’s and yet they are submersibles

    • Subs in WoWs, should they even put them in other than this Halloween event, cannot fire at anything while deeper than periscope depth (they can’t see to aim and their torps have no guidance). They won’t have to worry about surfacing for air as the match won’t last long enough for even the shittiest subs to run out, but they are useless when submerged anyway so it doesn’t matter. They probably cannot cap submerged either. Or spot. They won’t break the game any more than DDs do. Less, in fact.

    • Fubar96 Gaming Anything that can travel under the surface is a Submersibke by the definition of the word. I looked it up to be sure. So yes Submarines are submersible vehicles as are exploratory Submersible Remote vehicles

    • Buddtcasg96 you would think that would be the case, however it is true because submerged the boat had more resistance with all the water surrounding it and only being powered by batteries where when surfaced they could use their diesels to gain more power..

    • It’s a bit fresh and exotic, I would give it a try…
      Even though submarines will make it a nightmare (unless their HP pool is super low)

  11. Ohhhhyeah. German Type-XXI subs going after the royal navy. count me in! 🙂

    • I somehow doubt that wargaming would put that revolutionary submarine into the game; if Germany had that type of subs in 1943 and onwards, allies would have had a lot harder time to destroy them. As well as that, germans made acoustic seeking torpedoes innovation in response to allies being a lot more dangerous in that year and onwards…

  12. We can merge your two topics together and introduce the I-400 submarine aircraft carriers =D

  13. carrier re-balance reasons seems fake to me, this looks more like a case of xbox and ps4 needing a playable carrier, these aircraft look to be easy to control with a game controller

    • bleeckertb does it really matter why though? They needed to be fix and and are getting fixed regardless of the reason

    • i agree this is for console to a large degree. If you want to make a console version make it a damn console version….. Stop changing PC for console shit. pretty sure PS4 lets you use a keyboard “could be wrong”

    • +Josh l It does in fact let you use a keyboard and mouse. Sensitivities are weird, but War Thunder pulled it off with enough advanced customizing to use any type of control that exists.

    • +Josh l yeah you can link a keyboard to your ps4 a friend of mine has done so to make typing in chats easier

    • I’m exclusively a console gamer and I am biased, but you’re just wrong. WG see the numbers, have the data, and everything else for carrier players. You don’t. Carriers being unpopular has been an issue for years and I suspect the console versions have mainly been being worked on this year. It isn’t even out yet. Not even the closed testing for PS4 has started and Xbone is limited. So, I strongly disagree.

  14. I’m really looking forward to flooding someone, then coming back 30 seconds later to cause numerous more floods.

    I don’t see the difference between a huge alpha strike, and the ability to burn/liquidate a ship with a single squad.

    • i guess the difference is more time for aa to work?

    • It seems like the squad would get torn the fuck up by any ship with decent AA while you’re circling for another run, and while you’re going in for the strike itself, since only like 1/4th of the squad is actually doing any damage. An alpha strike would be much, much more effective at sinking a ship

    • +135flyguy I always wanted ships to have two health bars, one for general damage and then one for flooding. I guess the flooding bar could basically work in reverse of the standard health bar as the crew works to contain/offset flooding to a certain point.

    • Flooding should be limited. Ships had watertight compartments so it would not be possible to sink a larger ship with a single torpedo.

    • djolley61 and the Alsace has much higher deck plating than 32mm.

      Radar didn’t see through islands

      Realism is sacrificed for balance

  15. I feel I am the only one who liked the RTS gameplay of the Carriers.
    I had a bigger problem with the limited plane “ammo”

    • I loved it. I am a big RTS player, so it was natural for me and made getting 100k damage games easy

    • I don’t
      If I like an RTS, I go and play an RTS
      And I don’t like RTS

    • I’d be cool to see a CV player admit they enjoy the seal-clubbing, God-like affect of the CV in this game (and real life too).
      They will freely admit that the current CV’s require “extra intelligence” LOL…..but seal-clubbing super power? “Oh now I wouldn’t do that” LOL!!
      Its a fun topic … to watch everyone squirm! 😉

    • I do believe that planes should be AI operated after launching from the carrier. In historical situations, carrier captain could not see what the patrol saw and gave Pre-launch instructions to pilots as to what to look for. The wing commander then gave his wingmen his orders based on what they found.

      Players will have to be very careful with where they park the carriers if the planes will be controlled all the time.

    • This is how WG responds when their elite players complain about the one element in the game that they cannot control. They dumbdown/nerf/rebalance/restructure/remove whatever element the game has that counters the elite being able to pawn the other 95% of us. They did it quite dramatically with World of Tanks artillery class, which now is nothing but a nuisance, and not a competitive class. The uber players say “I can’t play the game my way, and have to rely on the rest of my team, who are useless and beneath me, so you must remove the offending element!” “Why?” says Wargaming. The elite respond, “It will ruin your chances to be E-sport worthy.” Wargaming replies, “Vasily, hand me the nerf bat, and pull out the rebalance shears. We have a game element to castrate, immediately!” Sad, but true….

  16. Now I know that a lot of people won’t feel the same way as I do, however, I actually don’t like the changes that are being implemented on aircraft carriers. Now before I go further I am not a good carrier player, I can do alright but I wouldn’t class myself as a match-deciding player. But I like the different style of play, I think it adds a new dimension of thinking and diversity to the time I spend playing. Now I am only at tier 6 on the American carriers and as such my thoughts may change as i climb the tech tree, but I do feel like this change is just so that wargaming can sell premium ships to a new market (console) and as such they needed to change carriers so that they can sell their premium carriers as well. I am also a BB player and I feel that it is already hard enough for me to not take extensive damage from even a mediocre carrier player and I feel that this change doesn’t stop carrier players from killing you if they choose to, it just makes it easier for less skilled carrier players to do it, they can still dedicate all of their torpedo bombers to a series of attacks on you that are one after the other and they still kill you and this will probably be especially true for slower ships. In my oppinion these changes, submarines and carriers, just make it harder for people to play battleships. imagine this, a new player gets a brand new tier 4 battleship and loads into a tier 5 match this isn’t too bad but in the first 5 minutes they have been torpedoed by a submarine they can’t attack back at and a carrier has focused them with a squadron of torp bombers and they die doing nothing, after that they probably won’t play battleships again and play cruisers instead because they can have defensive fire and will probably have depth charges so they are less vunerable to these implementations. AND THE H.E. SPAM CONTINUES JUST NOW WITH ROCKETS!!!! Also I love my fighters and now I will lose them 🙁 and what about the differences between the carrier trees? now they will be more or less the same, in the past you would go for americans for bigger squadrons but japanese for more flexibility in those squadrons, but with these changes whats going to happen? P.s.sorry about the essay I just vented I guess, what do you guys think? I am curious what you guys think of this.

    • The Spanish Inquisition

      This looks 2 much like Artillery from WOT, and everyone hates artillery form WOT. So i am VERY skeptical of these changes.

    • yup, that’s the FIRST thing i thought seeing the new gameplay. in what way does it solves the issue? if anything it makes it worse….cause now, even average player will be able to delete pretty much any ship they decide to focus, whereas at least for now, you have to be quite a good CV player to achieve that. i do not play BB because of the amount of torps in the game, mainly due to CVs because you cannot avoid them. you can avoid most DD ones with map awarness. typical wargaming, try to solve an issue, comes up with a “solution” that will make it even worse. seems like it might be arussian dev thing, seeing what gaijin and mail ru are doing to adress the issues in war thunder / AW

    • Holy mother of God….. Flooding. That would make these broken as all hell. They either have to make it so you don’t flood, or make flooding do WAY less damage. I’d like to think they know this, but hey. We’re talking about the same company that let artillery one shot for years, so……..

    • I have to agree. While I totally understand that carriers need to be re-worked to better fit within the arcade-y model of WoWs (or at least made more approachable), I’m not sure I like the way they’re doing it. I wouldn’t say I’m a good carrier player by any means; I’ve reached the Hiryu but there’s a lot of room for improvement (not least because I haven’t played in a while). But I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with having carriers be fundamentally different even in a simplified arcade framework. Some people (myself included) like the mental workout of managing several different squadrons at once and keeping tabs on more than one spot on the map.

      There are absolutely problems with how they work right now. In the right hands they’re very hard for a non-carrier to counter effectively, and the balance between different tiers of aircraft and flight decks is almost always precarious at best. Nobody likes being deleted without recourse (looking at you, detonations). But equally, carrier players are stuck with a fairly binary feast or famine playstyle which either lets them destroy things too easily or renders them completely useless based on things they can’t control (getting uptiered, facing same-tier carriers with upgrades when you have none).

      So really the question is: does this rework actually solve these problems? In my opinion, no. Obviously this is just a proof of concept and doesn’t reflect a fully fleshed-out or balanced implementation. But from what we’re seeing here, it makes these problems worse or replaces them with equally troubling ones. The ability for a carrier to single out and destroy an enemy easily is still there, if not even more problematic because they’re limited to one squadron which can nonetheless carry out multiple strikes relatively quickly. In the current model, throwing all your squadrons in one place has drawbacks: you surrender air coverage elsewhere and make your planes more vulnerable to getting caught or strafed by fighters. Additionally, having all planes in a squadron attack at once means that you have to be much more careful about where and when you attack. The more attacks you make at once, the harder it is for an enemy to avoid them, but the easier it is for them to stop fires and floods with a single use of their damage control. If you just have the one squadron which can space out its attacks while also making those attacks much easier to execute (from this footage, it seems hard to miss), you get the worst of both worlds, because attacks are harder to avoid AND more likely to cause lingering floods or fires you can’t fix.

      Then you have the removal (or at least strict limitation) of fighters. Right off the bat that removes virtually all interaction between carriers except for attacking each other directly with strike craft, which is already something that can end a player’s game extremely quickly with little room for error. The lack of extra squadrons to control simultaneously seriously hinders your ability to scout (one of the most useful assets a carrier provides for its team) because now keeping your active squadron in place to scout means that’s more or less ALL that squadron is doing. Without carriers to provide fighter cover, the weight of AA support falls pretty much exclusively on a ship’s AA rating and access to defensive fire. So we’re right back to ships either having way too easy a time destroying planes, or getting absolutely wrecked because they can’t inflict enough damage to stop them before they get multiple high-damage strikes off.

      Oh, and I guess they’re adding attack planes with rockets, which seem to serve the sole purpose of annoying everyone further by being nearly impossible to miss with and also having a high fire chance. Of all the potential changes, this one confuses me the most. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?

      TL;DR: Carriers need reworking, but nothing I’ve seen from these previews suggests that the existing problems will actually be solved by the new system, which may in fact introduce new ones. I really hope significant changes are made before any of this goes live.

      Submarines are another can of worms entirely…

    • How about if you don’t like it don’t play them and let people who like the style play them, the only reason you get CVs dominate battles is due to pure stupids!! if a BB goes yolo of hes going to die if how ever he has another bb or 2 near him or 2 cruisers as happened in real life a cv will lose most of his planes before a hit but players do not play as a team and that’s why they seem OP as hell

  17. Okay miners and minions of the all powerful Jingles… This is just a concern of mine and I would like to get other peoples opinions. War Gaming have said that one of the reasons they did this in this way was to remove a carriers ability to just “Blap” a target (Technical term, of cause). Picture this, you are in command of an attack wing of torpedo bombers with two enemy ships in front of you. You torp one and cause flooding. Then do the same to the other; while you hit the second, the first uses damage control. So you torp him again, then do the same again to the second. Two dead ships. You didn’t exactly “Blap” them out of existance but you took out two ships all the same.

    In my opinion, if anything, this is going to make it even easier for you to do this. Especially with you having enough planes per squadron for four strikes…

    Opinions chaps?

    • I am not a fan of sky cancer, especially when I am in cruisers that force you to choose between hydro and dfaa. Having said that, as long as the damage/game is balanced, I would be fine with this new style of play. As far as multiple strikes go, you better not blow that repair party early or you are in trouble. You are just going to have to flood a bit or burn a bit until the squadron is done attacking. I hope the AA does a better job than what I saw in the video clips so far.

    • Since only 3 planes attack per raid that squadron lives an awefull long time between 2 ships
      while being hammered by AA. I think they won`t live long.
      But your tactic sounds logical, besides, the CV needs to stay a threath.
      Also do i recall mentioning the ships will get dedicated sectors concerning AA.
      Thing is, we miss the technical knowledge to come to a hard conclusion yet.
      Good thing is ur in a US BB, u`ll be fine mate. =D

    • And if you did not mange to sink them, you can select bomber and set them on fire… and there is nothing, nothing the other carrier can do about it… except press a cooldown an expect AI to do the job…
      After so many years I expected for WG to understand that RNG is not the good way to implement stuff…

    • That seems a fair copp, might as well allow for the “alpha strike” at that juncture, as it might avoid carrier drivers burning whole squadrons of ships to the waterline whilst they cackle on the 0 line…

    • Reduce chances for airdrop torps to cause flooding IMO. IIRC, they were quite a bit smaller in size than ship launched torps. That and probably make them weaker.

  18. I think that Carriers and Destroyers might be the main ships to kill the submarines. Also, what Wargaming should add is a convoy hunter game mode

  19. A) “It’s too hard” – why? Because WG refuses to fix the bugs in the UI – and implemented a stupid strafe mechanic which requires the player to rely heavily on the UI. What makes us think that the new mode will be developed properly when the old mode was never fixed?

    B) “CV is too powerful – it can sink you easily with nothing you can do about it” – the same logic applies to Yamato. Also, you have AA and teammates. There is definitely something you can do about it. The same logic applies to some of the radar boats with respect to DDs…the game is full of these. Also, what bullshit is this that DDs are going to get sunk without recourse. Learn to WASD. Sinking a full AA cruiser isn’t without cost to the CV, he will lose much of his strike power for the rest of the match. I will counter this whole argument with WG’s standard response to this kind of potato whining. Git Gud.

    C) CV rework is designed specifically to play on the console. That’s the reason to rework CVs, not the other bullshit reasons.

    D) “Low population of CV players” – “couple of dozen players” – You DO realize that there is more to this game than tier X? There are THOUSANDS of CV players…just most of them don’t play tier X. I have NEVER had a wait time to play my CV on the NA server. NEVER. This whole, ‘there aren’t enough CV players’ is bullshit.

    E) “Aircraft carrier control is a different game” – you do realize the rework will still require the player to plot his CV course on the top-down map. It will STILL be a different game, so long as you have to control and command more than one discrete unit on the battlefield.

    Discussion on the gameplay video:
    1) TB spread is still perfect and known. This is one of the main problems with alpha damage. The CV player knows PERFECTLY what his TB spread will be. Imagine if a BB player could know and aim his gun dispersion perfectly. WG has decided to nerf this by the silly expedient of forcing only three planes to launch, but still exposing the entire squadron to AA which is absurd and silly. The solution to this problem is to allow the entire squadron to drop, but in series…with RNG determining the heading of each plane torpedo heading. Do away with the spread indicator and just give the player a lead indicator to center his drop upon (much like BBs get to aim at a point and the RNG dispersion does the rest). Hey presto, a FAR BETTER core game mechanic that is a lot easier to balance and helps with the skill gap in delivering massive alpha damage.

    2) Why are you confident that things that ‘prove to be an issue’ will get changed? What in the past three years of CV broken behavior has given you any confidence in WG’s commitment to changing things? We’ve had our hands on CVs for years and EVERYTHING has NOT been tweaked or balanced.

    3) The other questions you SHOULD be asking is if this is how CVs are going to be, will you continue to play DDs (and deal with even better enemy perma-scouting), cruisers (who will now need to sail in open water to give AA protection), and BBs (who will be burned and flooded to death within a two minutes of coming under air attack by the DOT mechanic teased here).

    • OMG! Just state the reason, then follow up with “no it’s not” then follow up to the next reason and say, “no its not”.

      Do they have enough CV players? WE can guess all we want and even disagree with WG on this, but … well …. Actually, I’m pretty sure WG know “exactly” how many CV players they have that are active, non-active, how many at each tier etc etc.

      If the comment was meant as sarcastic humor….you got me! lol!

  20. As a CV player, I’m following the news of the rework with interest. Its true that they will lose the “battlefield command” role that they currently have, and maybe i will be a little upset with the changes but this can open the door to some ideas that have existed since the launch:
    -Return of the jet aircraft, that were removed in balancing
    -Kamikazes, japan did not have CAS rockets like the americans and could be a good counterpart of the atack planes
    -The Eternal balancing of Graf Zeppeling and reopen it sale
    -New tipes of ships like seaplane tenders or retrofited ships like the japanese Ise class

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *