Adding playable carrier in enduring confrontation naval

Definitely! I think that the USA , Japan and the UK should have carrier trees starting from world war 2. Japan’s carrier tree could be quite weak , as they had to stop building aircraft carriers after world war 2. Also , the UK had some short periods when they stopped building carriers, meaning that the US would be the only stable tree throughout the time period that the game takes place in.

1 Like

Just for asking, are you talking about the carriers of all the nations that have they or only USA, URSS and UK?

Actually, my idea is to add only carrier for everyone.
For exemple :
US and UK carrier (japan havent catapults)

but if there a tree, german could have graff zeppelin

the thing is that the UK has several modifications and modernisations of carriers, the illustrious class alone can have like three variations that are unique, not to mention the different aircraft loads and partially constructed ones like the Malta and CVA-01 classes

Japan also has a large enough amount of carriers to keep it going for a while, if it gets a Thai subtree it could use Thailand’s aircraft carrier as well

And italians can have Sparviero and Aquila.

+1 for Naval EC only, as in Nuke plane or drone.
As for an aircraft carrier to TT, I would not think it is desirable, but it could be added in this way.

1 Like

i fully agree with this

I agree about italy, so that only remain USSR without carrier, not a problem !

1 Like

Finally something in which Russia is the worst.

USSR does have a couple of carriers

the issue is that all of them as far as i know are all cold-war designs

I’m really glad to see that 88% are ok with this idea !
I never thank that it would interest players to play this !

Maybe its time for a new era in Warthunder ?

So if I understand this correctly the whole gameplay would be just you waiting until someone spawn on you?

Well… good point.

In my naval EC experience, it’s very rare to have the convenience to spawn on a carrier… unless somebody is trying to sink the carrier or is placed ( randomly…) on a good position on the battlefield.

I seriously would like to have playable aircraft carrier on EC game, but the gameplay must be more interesting than waiting some fellow to spawn on you.

Let me say… why not use carrier as a mobile spawn zone, not only for planes, but also for ships.

In this way a carrier could be used to lead and move allied position over an enemy base o convoy.
This part works if ther’s cooperation between players, a thing always in doubt, even if I would say in naval EC events I’ve encountred the best teammates, people who actively collaborate to gain the victory ✌️

On the other hands, player must protect carrier, and enemy should be rewarded for its destruction.

Even said this, due to naval EC mechanics, a fellow with Lancaster and a 12000 lb bomb can evaporate any ship in a single hit… Soo… taking off carriers from sea could not be so hard…

Lancaster should not be able to take off from carrier.

The gameplay seems pretty poor to me. Sure you can give your team advantage as movable spawn but it will boring af. And (I think) every map in Naval EC has several airfields so unless we get full sea map, like Battle of Midway, there is no use for aircraft carriers.

I mean there is, similar to what it is in WoWSh, where you can spawn airplanes yourself.

I knew that 🤣 it was not what I meant

Let me say… why not use carrier as a mobile spawn zone, not only for planes, but also for ships.

As my idea said : ships could be able to spawn on them

They will serve as spawn for allies, whether planes or warships.

1 Like

Sorry… It was not clear for me 😃

Btw . I’ve already saw your nickname, are you the same guy who creates the custom maps with combined forces ( naval, ground and air)?

Yes its me !


Sorry for something that seems like hijacking your suggestion but I was told that the proposal I submitted was too close to what you have offered and I am to instead integrate it into your thread!
So overall, the two connecting points between my suggestion is yours regarding using spawn points to spawn in carriers, but whereas yours focused on Enduring Confrontation, mine addresses the normal Naval RB (and possibly AB). Yours are inclined to define the carrier mechanic while mine places more emphasis on spawn condition. Without further ado:

Spawn Point Based and BR Dependent Aircraft Carriers

This suggestion tied to the post about the implementation of submarines, please be sure to look into it for a complete picture.



As Gaijin is currently considering the implementation of submarines, aircraft carriers might also be on the table, as it is another anticipated vehicle class in the Naval community. However, it is clear that carriers have a number of balancing problems that are required to be addressed.

The most obvious problem is that, with the way that Naval is arranged currently in an ascending order of weight classes, lower BR suffers from insufficient Anti-Air suite. That is not to say that all higher BR ships are invulnerable to aircraft as we certainly have some pre-dreadnoughts present with questionable anti-aircraft capabilities, but in general, most higher BR vessels has a suite of AA weaponry that lower rank Bluewater/most Coastal vessels cannot match and safe to say that this trend would continue as the naval roster expands. Naturally, this means that should a carrier be a tech tree vehicle implemented through all BR brackets, it’d be massively unbalanced in the lower end of the BR ranges.

It could be said that the solution to avoid this is for the team to stick together to provide adequate AA coverage for each other as was done in real life, but this hinges on the assumption that teamwork would exist among strangers in an average match, which is optimistic at best.

The Idea


As a solution to this, as a part of Bombe18’s thread suggest, is for carrier to be a spawnpoint based, match exclusive vehicle, much like how attack drones are currently implemented in high-tier Ground RB. However, unlike the main thread’s suggestion, it wouldn’t be restricted to one vehicle per team, but whoever has enough spawn points would have an option to spawn one in. But assuming that the spawn point is balanced towards mid-game, the problem of having too many carriers shouldn’t be an issue.

To address the problems above, carriers will have mutually exclusive BR ranges; meaning that below a certain BR, you won’t have the option to be a carrier. This BR range would be determined by what can adequately counter the options.

In my opinion, carriers spawn option should start at 5.0 onwards, although it would probably start with rudimentary escort carriers that get progressively stronger the higher the BR range.



  • Carriers are locked in BRs that they can be adequately defended against.

  • As its locked behind (presumably pretty high) spawn points, you wouldn’t have matches filled with them, especially not at the start of the game.


  • The biggest con is probably the choice of vehicles to play is out of your hands. It will probably be the kinds of vehicle that is representative of your nation; so this would mean something like IJN Houshou, HMS Hermes, USS Long Island, etc. to start off with. Although with (presumably) wider BR bracket to play with in the future, you will get more selection to more carrier classes in higher BRs - although it does inevitably means you will miss a few niche favorites like IJN Shinano.

    • Certain nations like Germany doesn’t have a carrier tradition and may be handicapped by this, but everyone being limited to a handful of playable carriers should balance it out. Should it come to worse though, the concept of nations lacking types of vehicles in a particular tech tree is something already accepted in the game, e.g. lack of light and heavy tanks in Japanese ground forces, etc.
  • As it is a spawn point based system, by the time you can spawn one, the match might have progressed to the point where you can’t make any meaningful contribution with it.

Again, sorry if this is an awkward insert and any replies to this in the future as I’ll be linking this post to its submarine counterpart.

1 Like

They had a flying one, however, the 2 that could be added are the Izmail to an Aircraft carrier or Project 71. Which wasn’t ever built to my knowledge which is limited.