Support Carriers Could Make World of Warships Better

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (585 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

I’m PQ. Hopefully, on this channel, I can teach you a bit about how I play the game. Thanks for watching.

WoWs NA Invite:
WoWs RU Invite:

Carry, Pushing, How To Win, How To Carry, Pro, Unicum, Tutorial, Guide, World of Warships, Fun, Funny, Captain Skills, Changes, Build, Setup, Carrier, CV, Support, Strike, OP, Smoke, Disabled, Stun, Bombs, Update, Dev Blog,


  1. I feel that the idea of a ‘support carrier’ could be good, but stun bombs are a stupid idea. They could have a dedicated ASW squadron, some plane that could lay smokescreens, etc.

    • I like the idea of the stun bombs, but the way they’re going about it is SO terribly thought out. Consumables are not something that should just be taken away like that. My idea – have a squadron ranging from 4-6 bombers in a single attack flight. When attacking, they drop the bombs and they either lower an active consumable for 1 second each hit or increase the cooldown time by 1 second each hit. This should also be a tactical squadron, not something that can be spammed to infinitely stall a BB heal or a cruiser radar.

    • I do agree with u. Tbh im really afraid on the way WG is ploanning to use this “stun bombs” and hopefully IF they do eventually do implement this such of a thing i do wish it would not be like what they have planned in this devblog rn. Just look at the state of SPG in WoT, there is a reason why many people are leaving that game (including me years ago)

    • Wojciech Dubrownik

      I don’t like having some CVs with dedicated ASW planes as much as I dislike a dedicated anti-radar consumable.

      Dedicated ASW/chaff/DFAA have to be really strong, to make up for the fact that they’re gonna be worthless in 50% of the games – or hardly anyone will pick them for that consumable. It’ll be an annoying gimmick, not a core mechanic.

      Just balance those game mechanics, not create hard counters that are just “welp, guess I can’t do shit in this game”.

    • @Wojciech Dubrownik I must agree. Most of the new ship lines and current MM goes either way for you. Either you get in a good MM and on a goof flank and you have some fun OR you can just do jackshit. (Like playing a cruiser with bad AA, no heal and meh concealment in a double uptier match against 4 overmatch BBs and a T 10 CV while a submarine mocks you all game.)

      WG must find a way to BALANCE mechanics and not simply add hardcounter-gimmicks on certain ships which basically make your ship useless for the whole match. Thats not fixing the problem, its just annoying the playerbase every second match or so.

    • @MIKKO DORIA remember rocket planes used to not exist at all – and the game was so much better for it.

  2. Support carriers would be interesting if they focused on vision, AA (interceptors in addition to a scout plane type,, for example), ASW, smoke and anti-smoke; maybe mine-laying (give them a *long* activation delay, kinda like torps but more so, to give people time to get out from amongst under them before they turn into nasty zone of do-not-enter).
    With the proposed vision changes to current CVs, that would have some potential for variety and utility in exchange for the raw damage.

    Stun is just a no-no though. Too hard to get a balance between “no fun allowed” and “this is redundant”. Players ALWAYS hate loss-of-control in games, and this is just going to be incredibly toxic.

  3. WG were unable to implement proper rewards for teamplay since the game was introduced. All kinds of indirect damage (potential, spotting) are not rewarded at tall or rewarded very badly. Even damage to planes was not rewarded until recently. Why do you think they would be able to implement a SUPPORT class ?

  4. Another thing that prevents pushing, as if Strike CV’s, subs, He Spammers weren’t enought.. Basically only ships like Thunderer or Conqueror will be playable

  5. I hope the Support Carrier have high reserve of fighter/interceptor like Bearn

    And they should really reduce the duration of Stun bomb effects

  6. Every developer who aims at the number of players and not the quality and wants to build funding on this basis introduces randomness into the game. Just so that those who ain’t good also have a chance to achieve their little victories and have that feeling of impact. These types of random mechanics are introduced, for example, in card games like Heartstone, where even if you can’t build your own composition, you can always collect cards that, when dies summons something that, for example, has poison and will kill your unit, or another unit will appear that will create another card or effect etc. etc.

  7. I remember when what I considered playing support CV, was taking the flight control option with the most fighter squadrons, and sending them to protect ships on my team. Oh and back then AA actually did something.

    • Well, even RTS CVs were litteral deathgods if played right, you had the feeling you could help your team with fighter or good AA. It was nice to know your CV got you covered with airsupport while you push a flank or nice to know your good AA just helped your CV to get air supremicy for the match.
      You simply cant deny there was more of a teamplay feeling back in RTS days then now. Fighters do nothing at all and AA is a pure gamble and shit most of the time.

  8. Let’s just think for a second, how powerful the “support” should be to be balanced against strike carriers?

    • the strike carrier will probably tickle you to death, the support carrier kills you by stunning your damage con as you get he spammed to death.

  9. Replace the stun bombs with water buckets that can be dropped on allies to extinguish fires and carriers go from sky cancer to saving world of warships. They would be less popular but just as impactful, if not more, in a skilled player’s hands.

  10. If we’re going to talk about cv support, can we have fighters that actually do something

  11. @Potato Quality While I agree that the stun bombs are quite possibly the worst idea to ever come into the games with the possible exception of subs and CVs, I honestly don’t think having any kind of carrier in the game is a good idea. As you pointed out this is a surface ship game and having to deal with being spotted by sky cancer and by subs in addition to the normal surface combatants is a real pain. I had I don’t know how many games yesterday where I had two subs 4 DDs and a CV! If they really would like to introduce something that will liven up the game and encourage closer range combat, implement line of sight restrictions on hydro and radar. Without their all knowing all seeing eye telling a player what’s on the other side of an island, they now have to use their intuition and roll the dice. Chaff? Don’t need it. As a DD main, I’ve found that taking dazzle opens up the dispersion of those firing at me long enough for me to slip away most times. Smoke screens? That is always has been one of the DD’s primary jobs. Having a aircraft flying over and driving smoke just doesn’t work especially considering it’s going to be spotting as well. One of the biggest issues with CVs is having what is essentially an AWACS flying around. So how about this? Take away a carrier’s ability to provide spotting. They can fly around all they want and find targets for themselves but they cannot spot for surface ships. I think I could get on board if something like that was implemented.

  12. They should remove spotting for carriers. Replace it with a “flare” consumable that spots the ship that it is placed over as according to their detectability by air.

  13. I like the support carrier idea but like alot of other players the “stun bomb” is a very bad idea. Now tbh I am a cv player (but mostly a bb main ) and i can be biased with my opinion, but not everyone can play a cv and be good at it. Yes cv’s can be a problem for surface ships but since this is (and yes i know it’s “world of warships” and not wows + warplanes) a mostly WW2 naval game, you have to remember that WG was going for the historicly accurate idea and there was surface to air combat. I’m not saying that cv’s are not OP because there are ones that are ( and plus with WG’s persistence in adding subs to the game when we don’t want them ) I just think that cv’s provide a spice to the game that keeps you on your guard. The support cv idea is a good concept. Teamplay is the biggest issue that we’ve been dealing with for awhile since some teams just dont want to work together at all. I’m eager to see how this turns out but the strike cv’s should stay relativly the same (some changes are needed ) but they should still keep their strike capabilities.

  14. Remember when rts carriers had controllable fighters to take down enemy aircraft. Just give that option back. I feel like more people would appreciate a cv player if they can protect ships with more than a bubble that worked sometimes

  15. For me a support carrier would drop smokes, could maybe do a flyby and put out a fire with a foam spray or something, maybe drop some para engineers to do a healing on the ship. Those 3 squadrons would be awesome and even though I don’t like it if they want to keep strike carriers in, however if they do then the support carrier could also have an actual FIGHTER squadron you control that could only take out enemy carrier planes. You can tell me that something along those lines of a support carrier would not be awesome balanced and what the game needs.

  16. If they had to be in the game, I would

    – remove all spotting from the main aircraft but spotting is done with a spotter plane. A buffed version of what cvs poop out now.

    – have them drop hydro. Basically a stationery buoy with a 5km hydro radius. Great to drop in front of a pushing flank or in a torpedo alley.

    – have the smoke be a short duration but much bigger area than normal, say 1km radius but only lasts for 30s – 1min for example. Great for covering broadsides and escapes but not super long to promote farming. Also blocks all incoming and outgoing radar – that is if you’re in the smoke, not behind it.

    – if they seriously insist on the stun mechanic, have it as a mine that disables engine or rudder. But no stun is better.

    Other potential ideas would be to make it like Arms Race. The support cv can drop heals, and short-term buffs. Added fun bonus of the enemy also being able to claim them.

    But an ultimate fix is a separate game mode for cvs where anything goes. No limit on the number of cvs per team.

  17. So I have a random question, with the introduction of the HMS Eagle and USS United States, do you think modern ships could be coming to WoWs? I feel they are already in the works, and will (hopefully) be implemented into their Gamemode like WoT did. But I also feel that they aren’t gonna be coming any time soon

  18. Imagine double CV match, first “support one ”stuning” you and second standar one taking you down. Result even funnier CV matches.

  19. Interesting approach: when we yell about how bad CVs, submarines, captain reworks and super ships are they laugh in our faces and bring them anyways.
    So comforting the Devs in the idea that this might be good actually might throw them off.
    So I cross fingers that your tactic will work.
    If your video actually contained some serious consideration of anything in WGs approach should be looked into Fürther, I suggest to seek medical attention

  20. Geoff the Ironwolf

    I would love support carriers to be ASW, and help for other ships.

Leave a Reply

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