Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Un-Historical Strategy!

 
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 >> Un-Historical Strategy! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 3:57:38 PM   
Toby42


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline 		How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

_____________________________

Tony
Post #: 1
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 5:02:33 PM   
LarryP


Posts: 3783
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Carson City, NV
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...


Did you have to put your carriers by the land bases to lure the Japanese in so they would be within reach?

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 2
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 6:25:59 PM   
Toby42


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline 		No. I ran as fast as I could away from the base. The Japanese Ships came in close and I was able to get three strikes in easily. Kinda of fun, but not very historical... especially with the anemic results when you attack a landbase ???

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to LarryP)
Post #: 3
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 6:33:53 PM   
fabforrest

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/30/2006
Status: offline 		"especially with the anemic results when you attack a landbase"

boy, that is for sure.

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 4
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 8:17:20 PM   
OldBoney

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/13/2007
Status: offline 		Probably there should be a limit to the # of squadrons you can base at Wake (or any place for that matter). Carriers have a max planes but I don't see the same for land bases. That apart I'm not sure how a-historical it is - Sara was delivering Buffalos to Wake in the real world Wake. I think Henderson field got some similar use.

It's a good way to get some use out of the Devastators in the Wake Scenario. The invasion force is drawn into torpedo range and your guys may get some hits. The only problem I see is how did they come to have all those tin fish stashed on the island.

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 5
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 8:33:14 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to get a/c to transfer to another airbase.  I've picked a squadron, hit the transfer command and... nothing.  Either from airfields or damaged (but still operational) CV's. What's the secret?

(in reply to OldBoney)
Post #: 6
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 8:46:02 PM   
Toby42


Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline 		Apparently there is a limit for landbases. I just ran the scenario again and I tried to transfer planes from all three US carrier's and I could only transfer two. I transferred the two and parked the third north of Wake. The empty carriers ran for Midway. I launched numerous srtikes over two days and another US Decisive Victory!! The Japanese ships get to within 20 miles of the island and I'm able to launch 100 plus plane strikes at them. The Japanese ability to bomb Wake with any results is meaningless....

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 7
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/2/2007 8:46:09 PM   
Richard III


Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to get a/c to transfer to another airbase.  I've picked a squadron, hit the transfer command and... nothing.  Either from airfields or damaged (but still operational) CV's. What's the secret?



You need to click on the small grayed out icon that looks like a bomb under the Air Group AC on the blue bar in the strike screen, once that`s lit it turns into a Target and the Strike/Launch button will be available, hit it and they will fly to the base.

It only took me several hours of playing with this poorly documented Game and unsupported Game Forum to figure out how to do that......................

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 8
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/3/2007 4:13:43 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale
How's this for stroking historical play as the US!
Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...


This "gamey" tactic provoked a lot of controversy over at the UV forum! However, historically the escort carrier USS Long Island -- which was almost worthless as a carrier -- did ferry a squadron of F4F Wildcats (VMF-223) to Henderson Field on Guadalcanal in '42. The very next day the squadron straffed Japanese troops.

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 9
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/3/2007 4:58:47 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

[]...You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk....[]

Phew, thanks for sharing your hint, I really had a hard time when I tried to keep my airfields afloat. I think I'll manage to do that now. j/k !

Seriously now, another "gamey" strat for IJN is to ignore the airports in the Pearl scenario, send the support TGs right into the harbor, just to launch the a/c waves. If you keep fleeing from surface battle (with your support TGs) until the anchored enemy TGs have been reduced by your a/c strikes, you can "clean" Pearl. I killed ALL ships (40?) in the harbor that way, with the last going down 10 mins (game time) before the scenario ended, that is unreal.

The game does allow quite a few gamey strats, that's a pity.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 7/3/2007 5:06:21 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 10
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/3/2007 5:11:01 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!

Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!!


Easy to fix this. Change the airbase capacity to "small dirt" or have a flag included "land based air only".

Or don't do it the AI won't. IIRC the ability exists, to automatically save planes without a mother carrier from crahing into the sea if in the vicinity.

(in reply to Toby42)
Post #: 11
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/3/2007 2:41:53 PM   
alexs


Posts: 417
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: Sydney
Status: offline 		Hi Guys,
We've found and fixed the issue which a strike against a landbase wouldnt cause casualties to the squadrons housed there. This should eliminate the transferring of all squadrons to the landbase tactic. Whilst we do our best to remove the usefulness of these gamey tactics, it's hard to foresee them all before the game is released. We fixed many during development, but you know what they say about building a better mousetrap. . .


_____________________________

AlexS
SSG
Support@ssg.com.au

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 12
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/4/2007 3:36:39 AM   
JD Walter


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

SSG's dedication to fixing broken aspects of its titles is well-known. I am glad to see it once again in action here for CAW.

I greatly look forward to the patch, and appreciate your company's efforts in this regard!

(in reply to alexs)
Post #: 13
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/4/2007 4:12:42 AM   
jazman

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 1/20/2007
From: Crush Depth
Status: offline 		Now we're all looking forward to the patch. How long??

(in reply to JD Walter)
Post #: 14
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/4/2007 5:28:35 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi Guys,
We've found and fixed the issue which a strike against a landbase wouldnt cause casualties to the squadrons housed there. This should eliminate the transferring of all squadrons to the landbase tactic. Whilst we do our best to remove the usefulness of these gamey tactics, it's hard to foresee them all before the game is released. We fixed many during development, but you know what they say about building a better mousetrap. . .



You should have recruited more beta testers. It took me or my opponents like 30 minutes to discover some of the gamey and/or buggy stuff that should have been cleared in the alpha stage of game development.

One of the first things every human player does (and AI does that rarely or never) is to rush all his squadrons to forward airfields. It's a no brainer, and it takes like 5 minutes of H2H play to experience

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 7/4/2007 5:29:36 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to alexs)
Post #: 15
RE: Un-Historical Strategy! - 7/5/2007 8:42:04 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You should have recruited more beta testers. It took me or my opponents like 30 minutes to discover......

Nah, it's a matter of focus not number of testers. If the main focus is put on let's say SP or SP-scenario design, there are chances that another part of a game may have some dud torpedos on board.


< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 7/5/2007 8:43:06 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Un-Historical Strategy! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.750