I do watch carbs carefully, because when I limit calories but not carbs, it's harder for me to lose weight. If calories are quite low, I don't gain, but losing is hit or miss.
For myself, I've settled on a low-carb diet exchange plan, and limit bread and starch servings to about 3 per day and fruits also to 3 servings per day.
But what's true for me (45 years old, very sedentary because of pain and mobility and health problems, with diabetes and borderline low-thryoid) isn't necessarily true for you.
It's important to KNOW how carbs effect you, rather than guess, worry or wonder.
I used a food journal for many many months, to learn how different foods affect me. I was shocked to learn that low-carb had such an advantage for me (not only for weight loss, but for improvement of my symptoms). I had always assumed that low-carb was unhealthy and that "a calorie is a calorie" (that I would always lose the same amount of weight on 1500 calories whether the calories came from cake or celery).
I learned that to lose similar amounts of weight, I can eat 1500 calories of high-carb foods or 1800 calories of low-carb food. Even on similar calorie levels I'm far hungrier on high-carb. So, for me - eating low-carb has an obvious advantage.
I can only guess at most of the reasons low-carb works better for me, but again the food journal has given me clues. On a high carb diet, my body temperature is very low, and on low-carb it's closer to normal (otherwise, on a non-low carb diet, my body temperature is never over 98 degrees unless I'm ill).
I also know I have more energy (unless I go super low-carb and then I get severe headaches and other unpleasant symptoms).
None of that may apply to you. You could find that a very high-carb diet keeps you satisfied longer and that you lose better, or a moderate-carb - or you may find there's no difference at all.
Keeping a food and weight journal (and taking notes on how you feel physically and your hunger too) will show you your personal patterns. You won't know until you experiment.