Suggestion for next update

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Suggestion for next update

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Suggestion for next update

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Suggestion for next update - 6/13/2007 9:48:23 PM

von Curow

Posts: 89
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Plymouth (Massachusetts)
Status: offline

I finished playing the Midway scenario as the Japanese. It went reasonably well (okay, I lost 3 CVs and a CVL -- but I sank 3 CVs and successfully invaded Midway) but I was surprised by a couple of things.

After the carrier battles ended badly for both sides, I had little left in the way of bombers, so my remaining carriers fled the battle. My bombardment force struck Midway about as early as they could. My invasion force arrived and unloaded 45 invasion points about as quickly as they could.

Here's my problem. After the bombardment force completed its mission, they continued to get hammered by the flights at Midway. During and after the invasion, the invasion transports were bombed about once per hour by Midway's full complement of bombers.

That's right, Midway's effectiveness as an airbase was not affected at all by either the bombardment or the invasion. I checked after the game ended and there was no damage to Midway or its planes (except the planes that were lost in attacking my fleets).

To me, that doesn't seem right. Shouldn't Midway, and other objectives which are bombarded, be degraded by successful bombardment? Also, shouldn't successful invasion of Midway hamper air operations a little bit? Maybe a sliding bar would work. The more bombardment points that pile up, the more damage done to the airfield. Likewise with the invasion.

Also, why is it hard-coded in the scenario that only certain TFs can bombard? Japan has several battleship groups in the area of Midway but only one single TF, which only has CAs, can actually perform the mission.

Post #: 1

RE: Suggestion for next update - 6/14/2007 3:24:58 AM

JD Walter

Posts: 235
Joined: 6/20/2003
From: Out of the Silent Planet
Status: offline

Hi vC,

One of the strengths of Gary Grigsby's UV and WitP system(s) is the ability to form TF's with missions as desired. I would venture to think that SSG, in the interests of simplifying things and focusing on a specific operation (via scenarios, versus focus on a theatre of operations a la UV, or a campaign vice WitP) chose to specify TF missions according to the historic roles each naval division was given by its CinC in real life.

Historically, at Midway the BB divisions were assigned the surface protection/engagement role. The CA division was responsible for invasion bombardment and suppression.

I would agree that airfield performance (esp. readiness and launch capacity) should be degraded, especially by a land invasion. Perhaps you could edit the scenario to award the Japanese a substantial number of VP's for taking Midway, if you wish, to reflect accomplishment of the operation's goals. That may make up for any losses incurred by sitting in the hex while invading.

(in reply to von Curow)

Post #: 2

Game Mechanics - 6/14/2007 3:04:39 PM

Desertmole

Posts: 144
Joined: 10/3/2004
Status: offline

I have played CaW in its previous incarnations, all the way back to 1985 when I bought it for my C-64. Great game. In the last version (CCaW) there was a Scenario Editor, and one of the (very) complex things to do was creating the threads for the AI. The central focus of maneuver and fighting was the TF. Everything was done by TF, and when ships were damaged there was friendly AI that took over the TFs created to deal with badly damaged ships. Creating threads was not simple, and IIRC the section of the manual on creating threads was bigger than the rest of the scenario editor instructions combined.

Aside from that, in UV (and WitP and WPO) you are an operational commander. You command the big picture. In CaW you are a tactical commander running task forces and air units. Big difference.

(in reply to JD Walter)

Post #: 3