World of Warships – CV Rework – NEW Gameplay Footage

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (381 votes, average: 4.74 out of 5)

Close Ad ×

Some additional CV rework gameplay footage has been released. This is co-op footage that is released by WG. Enjoy!


  1. at least it looks good

    we have that

  2. They are taking the leap of faith, the CV gameplay and Submarines would change the game a lot

    • they have to up their game. if WT naval gets polish they’re doomed

    • Already this game is a crap since they added german dds with hydro, then british cl with smoke and heal and british bbs. Maybe a big change like this could be better

    • I will take it with them. If you think this game can survive with people only playing three platforms and the fourth broken you’re out of your mind. We will have a total of 5 platforms to play that Lord willing will be properly balanced. Wargaming is a business after all and they must make a profit they are not your friend. They are here to provide you with entertainment and nothing else.

    • +Underbird [former X8X8] name a game you’re talking about that added content that people were asking for and fell? I bet you’re one of those World of Warcraft is dying.

    • Underbird [former X8X8]

      I have never played WoW, so I cannot comment on that.
      One of the most obvious examples is Dark Orbit, I think. It worked well for the first years, but by trying to add high level content and squeeze cash out of the players, the game basically died off – which is a shame.

  3. Bombers must double as fighters with full control .Cv needs full control .Returning planes will give away your location need control ….CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL

    • that too but I thought I had gone on long enough to make my point
      edit: omg imagine having to sail around using the autopilot if you run out of planes… can you even run out of planes in this?

    • If you paid attention to the Q&A they addressed that returning to the carrier spotting issue. But I need full aircraft carrier control. I plan on playing in the beta and I’m going to spam them with aircraft carrier control.

    • +Storm SLW That is exactly a good thing to do. If the DD’s do that then maybe the CV’s will learn to move the ships when a squadron returns and keep with their teamates not to stay at the back and cry when the team gets outflanked and they are too slow to move or too dumb to realize they are about to die

    • +play030 you don’t need to do this because if you can’t control the planes when they get back the carrier will learn to keep up with their teammates(from a 3 rd line of attack of course) in order to not get killed by the enemy team

    • Alex Alexutzu no it’s not a good thing this is how it was in the early day it means you can hide NOWHERE on the map in random battle no one will want to stay back and defend the carrier and if you move up you’ll be spotted and shot we leaned all this back in the early days of the game I assure you there is a reason cvs stay to the back of the map and it is that there aren’t many places to go on the maps till the later tiers

  4. Regarding the black flak: In real life, the black clouds weren’t actually dangerous. They were just a symptom of the bursting charge that was designed to fling shrapnel into nearby planes. In that case, being damaged right when they appear is pretty accurate.

    Visual cue might be the good way to look at it. The tracers from the small guns indicate that you’re under fire from mid or short-range AAA, but the big puffs are to let you know that you’re within range of a ship’s large-caliber AA armament.

    Will be cool if they’re visible from the surface as well. Something more substantial than the occasional “pop” and an aircraft kill ribbon.

    • Mind you, they are trying to get people to play CV not scare them away LOL ^_^

    • Yeah hearing him talk about this in the video made me face-palm

    • It’s an altitude-fused barrage, not an airborne minefield.

    • flying the aircraft through a shrapnel cloud was dangerous as you could suck the shrapnel into air intakes for the engines and other sensitive parts. it’s not like only the explosion was dangerous. also notice in the video the inconsistency of when the planes take damage from large caliber AA …

    • Remember that AA in World of Warships has always been aura-based. I really do think that the black clouds are just randomized visuals, and that the aircraft are simply taking DPM-based damage.

  5. must say I am not a fan of squadrons getting multi passes at your ship

    • The whole squadron didn’t drop their payload, only 3 at a time. Thats why it looks like multiple passes. The most you can make 4 strikes with 1 squadron. Isn’t that how it is in real battle too. Ships get hit with multiple passes.

    • They must change the DoT mechanics if they plan to add CV gameplay like this
      that´s for sure!

    • They had to do it this way to get away from the huge alpha strike potentail of CVs. And from the looks of it they don´t seem to have a high chance of flooding on those torps and fire chance is, well somewhere in between getting shelled by aWoocester and a Zao so pretty ok IF you know how to use your repair/demi con.

    • Just_Some_Random_Tryhard_Gamer

      Pick your poison – a single drop of 6 torps or a dot type of repeat attacks?

    • zam023  Actually, no. Aircraft will line up attacks in small groups, make an attack, and leave. You would not have a group of aircraft flying around inside the AA, and small groups breaking off to make attacks. If you took the existing system, and made attacks 1 squadron at a time, in whatever order they arrive at the target, it would be fairly similar to a real world situation.

  6. I see the reasons why WG go with this direction, but I don’t think it’s good to remove the RTS element from CV play and turn fighters into consumables…
    Fighters aren’t supposed to be consumable…

  7. Underbird [former X8X8]

    Not a big fan. Just looks like a cheap mobile minigame.

  8. Franklin Van Valkenburg

    I see the fighters being the primary anti-sub hunters if submarines are indeed rolled out for the game beyond the Halloween event. Given a sub’s low HP, these fighters should be potent against them. I see dive bombers as a moderate damage output option against larger targets like cruisers and battleships while torpedo bombers are still the finishing wave used to kill tougher targets or oneshot stuff if you’re skilled enough to make contact.

    With the addition of depth charges, submarines won’t enter the game unchallenged. Destroyer captains will have to re-think their doctrine and adjust their role to better account for subs being in the mix and carrier captain will have to consider how their planes are best used against different targets.

  9. I think they really need to also test this at low level where AA fire is either very weak or non existent.
    At the low to mid tiers CV’s can really grief players and this is where most CV players hang around as they suffer far less losses.
    This has the ability to cause multiple fires or floods, force DC only to swing round and do it again 30s later. The long suffering BB’s will really need a rework of their DC ability. They all too often burn to death currently.
    One thing I can already see is DD players crying and complaining about fires set by rockets.

    • watch the video carefully, the Midway went against FUSOs and Shimas …. so the AA was not that bad … only the ZAOs could pose some threat to the planes …

    • What ya think of a des Moines the aa king, that always shreds planes for breakfast

    • to add to what the others said you have to also think of the planes you’ll be using at that tier, they’ll be slower have less heath probably have less overall etc you have to remember we are looking at tier 10 planes (or whatever their the Midways planes are) in the video and the planes scale with that AA

  10. Ok I have a few comments based on this.

    First, use of rocket planes in early game can reduce the amount of AA being thrown against you in the late game as the rockets seem to destroy AA mounts and it would add a level of skill to CVs in that a good player will target those AA mounts early to reduce the incoming fire at the planes. Overall positive point to WG.

    Second, this is another inadvertent destroyer nerf. With the planes having a closer view of the field, a destroyer shooting from smoke can now be targeted easier with torpedo bombers just following tracer. I propose making air dropped torps deep water torps for two reasons. Reason 1: semi historical accuracy, due to the Japanese having to design shallow water torps in order to attack pearl harbor. This is a great segway to Reason 2: variance in nations as you could give Japanese CVs the option of loading the shallow water torps at a damage tradeoff. This would also give relevance to dive bombers as they would be the obvious choice for the better damage against destroyers.

    Last comment, how will this work with the dual purpose main battery guns with DFAA? Like will you be able to aim at the craft manually with DFAA or will it still be essentially RNG?

    Overall I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.

    • You cry about DDs?:)))) What about BBs that can be flooded 4 times in 1 run?:)))))

    • yeah it’s different and is only in the early stages soo we shall have to see .. control of the ship is important too .

    • Cosmin Lesutan I’m assuming they’ll have already realized that and will decrease the chance of flooding as its the obvious salution

    • I like your second point. However i don´t think that they should be pure deep water torpedos!
      My solution would look like this:
      Let air dropped torpedos dive several meters below the waterline when they hit the surface and then let them go upwards to the surface again so they can hit DDs after having travelled a certain distance themselves.
      This way, hitting DDs would be possible but not reliable.
      You are more of a punishing factor for example when a DD beached or isn´t paying attention.
      Also, you are able to drive them off regardless even when you don´t deal any damage which can be valuable too!

    • +Einfach I was trying to keep it simplistic though as the developers would still have to code this and having different value depths could either delay it or cause several bugs that could ruin the whole experience. That’s why I suggested just a simple way using a mechanic already in the game, but I really like your idea. Honestly though it is really going to hurt British cruisers too and having those deep water torps in the beginning could do lots of damage due to being under the torpedo bulge

  11. It reminds me of Battlestations Pacific and Midway, which i enjoyed thoroughly, problem is WG is doing it very half assed. Youre not playing a CV, youre playing world of warplanes. The only control you have of the carrier is autonav on the map, which means that CV sniping is going to make a big comeback. The movements of the aircraft aswell is very sloppy aswell and unappealing. Then theres also the massive limitation of only being able to control one swuadron at a time. Should have left in control over multiple squadrons as well.

  12. Generally speaking while not an “visible” stat DB’s ALREADY have Sigma. USN drop circle has not changed much but 3 years ago, right before the game went live – you could consistently nail a DD for massive damage. They nerfed DB accuracy on USN.

    This rework is at best a joke, at worst an insult. Instead of a year developing this garbage, in secret, with no input from the players that actually understand things and know what the actual issues are, they should have just bloody well made the changes they needed to to the current bloody system. Wanna know why the player base is small – it’s the constant threads from way back when of”Why are my planes just evaporating”. Also known as strafing, the cause of the bulk of the skill gap. It’s also the cause of the fighter heavy focus, because it deletes 30 planes unless RNG trolls you. Remove the super DPS buff from it, make strafe for the most part just a low power version of DF AA to mess up a formations accuracy, and that’s solved. USN and IJN fighters are imbalanced – nerf USN fighter DPS, solved. Manual drops, which is what this new mode is all day every day, wasa bad idea from the start, and this will not help the skill gap they want to address at all. Nerf CV alpha, that closes the skill gap dramatically cause I’m talking 2k max damage per torp and the difference between a mediocre auto drop and manual drop is 4-6000 damage as opposed to 40-60000 damage, and solves, along with nerfs to AP bombs and lesser ones to HE, the issue of CV’s just nuking a target in a single alpha strike barring detonations. Give lower tier ships later hull upgrades, tweak plane HP, dial back high tier AA a little, and that solves a good deal of planes getting through too easy, and planes getting deleted. CV spotting – lower aerial detection range to whatever number you want Wargaming, spotting is a job I can live without.

    That is pretty much every single major issue with CV’s – fixed. Just some bloody number changes. I had a match in Hak the other day – stock planes, setup, everything other than the two modules to upgrade my fighters, against a fully upgraded Hak. We both started out trying to strafe one another – but RNG trolled both of us, and at most, we would knock out 1-2 fighter planes. Even the massive formations we only took down a couple. So both of us gave up on them and set them to defend certain ships/areas and scout as needed, The focus became who was better at attacking the enemy ships, and when fighters would engage to defend ships/planes, it became about who picked the better spot to fight. Who still had ammo and planes up when the next attack came. Who was better at tactical choices of hitting what ship when – it was the most fun I have had in a CV in ages, bonus, my team won. And I’m not an RTS player, only one, Halo Wars, ever was actually enjoyable at all, and only the first one. But I enjoy this here.

    If they wanted an “alternate control scheme” that allowed you to take command of an attack squadron, sort of replacing manual drop, fine. Or some way that you combine things that players that want can use a system like this while the rest of us play normal – like how players use different views, fine. But this system is trash, it will change nothing, least not for the better, and what changes that would need to be made? Are changes that you make to the RTS as well and solves the issues.

    • Let me guess you are am rts player that goes from tier 10 carriers to tier 5 to roffle stomp the new guys and you dont want that power taken away from ypu because you would feel like a 3 yr old child that got his toy taken from him. Boy this is exactly what all the intact brain with at least 2 neurons community members are asking for a long time now, REWORK THOSE CV’s TO BE MORE NEWBIE FRIENDLY. Not everybody has to give their time to learn to play RTS games in order to play this ARCADE DESIGNED game. Amd accept that wether you like it or not the rework will be implemented and you won’t be able to roffle stomp newbie carrier players at tier 6 when they just recevied the manual drop pattern and the strafe ability

  13. I wonder if they’re just going the wrong direction, honestly. Carrier commanders didn’t fly the air strikes, they ordered them. This is as some have noted, more like World of Warplanes than Warships. I can’t help but wonder if they should make planes entirely AI controlled, but you direct them. No no, not RTS style like we have now, but you basically issue strike orders to a squadron. “Go here and attack any ships in this area” for attack aircraft, and “escort this strike” or “CAP this area” or “BARCAP this friendly ship” for fighter squadrons. Limiting this would be the fact that squadrons would have limited loitering depending on how far from the carrier they travel, which would add to the squadron travel time aspect in influencing where to move your carrier. You could even have “scout this area” for attack/fighter squadrons, which would require them to not have any air-to-ground ordnance but would give them enhanced travel and loiter time but keep them from being an attacker, as well as taking a large chunk of a CV’s active air force out of the fight. That would offer a trade-up to counter the current CV’s “spot everything at all times LUL” meta, while still giving carriers some kind of scouting ability.

    It’d still be kinda RTS, but without direct control over the units you’d be more of a strategic director than active participant. Of course, this would probably make the CV players bored not having much directly to do, so I dunno. Maybe if you designed the interface so that you “aim” squadrons like guns and “fire”—launching—them when you’ve lined up the range and bearing of the area you want them to do their mission in. Sort of like BB guns, but with more lead and longer reloads. And also give carrier players direct control over their defensive anti-surface armament. It’s paltry, sure, but at least it’d give them less a feeling of helplessness when operating closer to the front lines, and given the ideas I’ve mentioned theoretically should influence CV players to get closer to the action, it would make them more comfortable in providing close support. Not to mention, DDs can be nasty with their own limited array of popguns, so who knows? Might make carriers who run out of planes more interesting to watch and play.

    Meh, just my two cents.

    • That is my opinion, if I have to play aircraft and don’t have control of CVs and their 2ndarys I probably quitting the game. I want to order air strikes not spend all my time micro manage them while my CV gets torpedoed by a destroyer I can’t play the cv to fight.

  14. Ship Jesus was first to post on this topic

  15. When you dumb down gameplay so people who can’t use their brains be able to play. Nice work!

    • I agree. But one thing I don’t understand is the change of POV of CV’s planes and having to use one plane at a time. People can’t micromanage? I assume it’s because of the reptitiveness I guess.

      If the point of the rework is to make it easier for other types of ships to deal with planes, then how does simply changing POV help? AA still fuction as rng for the most part. Another way for ships to deal with planes is simply not play alone and run off the map by themselves. People working groups terrify the hell out of cvs. There’s practically barely anything you can do. Specially at higher tiers.

      Additionally, yes American fighters are undoubtable deadly. But I feel as if though that the amount of plane set ups the Japanese have counterbalances that.

      Going back plane rework, if other class ships just expect to kill off planes the moment they come across it, why do CV’s event exist?

    • I assume it’s so a carrier can’t just weave in with several types of aircraft to nuke a single ship. I do think they’ll be reworking Flak to make it more of an active game for the carrier. He can’t avoid all of the Flak, but he can avoid enough to at least do something. That, and, it’s not so much about micromanaging. It’s the fact that people with Pro-starcraft level of micro are a lot different than someone used to a more casual experience. It keeps the skill ceiling of even being useful in a game for carriers way too high for a lot of people.

      And presumably that rework will make flying into a whole group of Flak Cruisers a bad idea.

      In either case. I do think the fact Wargaming is trying *something* means they take this issue seriously.

    • Yes I can’t wait for the CV elite to be crushed. You’re either really good or mediocre to bad, no in between.

    • That’s exactly my point. CV gameplay is notorious for it’s learning curve. Some people realize that, and some don’t. That’s what make CV commanders shine. Their ability to outplay and actually be able to use their minds. People who aren’t willing to learn and understand the complexity of CV gameplay shouldn’t just complain all day and try to atleast do something first.

    • Christian Sedero  You’re not understanding what a skill gap is then. One can become better, but will most likely give up because some superunicum is always there to shut you down and if you do poorly your team hates you. CVs are too important, the skill gaps are too wide. I have used my brain, and it has determined CVs are OP and need help. This isn’t because people are stupid or lazy, it’s because CVs are just broken…don’t worry they’ll offer you a refund.

  16. what about us players who dont invest for a good pc and graphics card ; how are we supposed to dodge AA when so many things can cause our already average FPS To drop hard?

  17. i think the biggest issue is the fighters. their current implementation is insufficient . CVs have to counter other CVs otherwise this will be just hunt for the biggest damage. also the ships are now way more under constant plane harassment which will be very distracting

    • I disagree. The fighters, and planekills, are a thing just for the CVs. It really doesn’t “do” anything for the ships and if the CVs are stuck in plane-to-plane combats the whole game you might as well not have any CVs as far as the rest of the ships concern, bc they will never see any planes anyway.

    • If they make fighters a playable class you will eother see only fighter combat untill one cv runs out of reserves and that would turn the game into world of warplanes or war thunder or the second thing if you don’t see them going one after another would be a player plays completely fighters and another one tries to strike but geta decimated

    • Someone mentioned something interesting on another video on this. Why not make fighters a CV consumable? A CV can use the Fighter consumable to instantly bring up the minimap, they can select any ship, cap point, objective, ect, and a fighter squadron will run protection on that. I went one step farther, to prevent player controlled planes from just leaving before the fighters engage, any enemy squadron in the fighters area takes 25% damage. In a real life equivalent, this is like a fighter squadron rolling down from cloud cover (a way that they can just appear) for a strafing run (the 25% auto damage). Theres then a 10 second period where the fighters circle around, this allows the enemy player a chance to either press the attack knowing they take more damage, or break off. After the 10 seconds the fighters reengage. After 1 minute, the fighters break off and go on a 180 second cooldown (that can be reduced of course)

  18. they need to keep the RTS element. its the only thing that makes it different. its nice to have a different style of gameplay like rts in the game. and now they are trying to ruin it just because some people were too retarded to play CVs and because they want to make it viable to consoles. this is fucking retarded

    • So you’re okay with only 5% of the player base playing aircraft carriers and only 1% being good at it? And calling people retarded when they’re only trying to make the game viable for all and make money like they’re supposed to makes you look bad. I hope people like you leave the game.

    • I agree that its different and that there are people who love it. But what YOU have to understand is that this difference makes it inaccessible to a LARGE, im talking 90+% of the playerbase, portion of players. This means there arent enough CVs to go around in MM making entire lines of ships less playable, creating balance issues. On top of this, the skill cap on this is insanely high. So it creates a situation where 1 ship can basically decide the entire game. 1 team has a unicum carrier, the other doesnt. The unicums team wins. This doesnt happen with any other class. So, while I understand that a vocal minority love the current carriers, WG needs to make them appeal to a wider audience and lower that skill ceiling a bit

  19. I’m probably going to just sit back with some popcorn and watch this sink or swim. This mechanic is something that…. if I wanted it, I would play Battlestations: Midway for it…and I got bored of it there.

    Also, I don’t expect a lot of diversification in the planes because these mechanics are so specific and so rigid that I don’t think there is a lot of “same but different” things they could add. Even then, there were only 3 major fleets running carriers to a noticeable degree in this time period and 2 of them are already present and about to lose any variety they did have with this new system. The idea of a plane sigma is interesting but, if such a thing were implemented, especially without other useful things to do(like fight fighters or scout, etc). Most players interested in Meta would likely just move to the one that deals the most damage reliably, leading us right back to a lack of diversity. Honestly, it feels like the whole thing just lacks diversity at all right now.

    Actually, thinking of the demo. They are using BTDs…which are reasonably fast? Can you imagine who much or a boring slog that will be in earlier tiers?

    • They are not trying to make a game just for you. You know damn well that the player base for aircraft carriers are down to 5% according to wargaming. that was unacceptable and wargaming he’s doing what a company has to do in order to fix that. We don’t have a clue how this is all going to really work in the end until we all can get in and test it. And you sound like a Battleship driver.

  20. From an artistic standpoint, I love this. It looks great and looks fun.

    From the standpoint of what carriers are supposed to do, this seems quite counter-productive and robs carriers of a lot of their utility such as spotting.

    It honestly looks like they may as well remove the carriers entirely and just add aircraft as a playable type with the hangar capacity being a number of “lives”.

    • “robs carriers of a lot of their utility such as spotting.”
      Well, a class that is supposed to be on par with other ship types in terms of effectiveness shouldnt be able to spot the whole map single-handedly!
      And those squads still are the most efficient spotters in the game because they are blazing fast and line of sight isn´t limited by surface obstacles!

Leave a Reply

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