Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owl

Do supporting ships in a taskforce assist in AA defense? In other words if I were to swap around the ships in the Midway scenario - put the ships escorting the carriers actually IN the CV group would the AA defense be improved?
In some cases ships that were historically not a seporate group and did lend AA support to high value units (carriers usually) appear to be escort or screen groups in CAW. In general, unless an enemy surface fleet is threatening I'd rather have the screen and escorts with my CV's, helping to defend them vs air attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Ships in a TG can assist a ship under attack with AA fire. First, the ship under attack always gets to fire at its attackers. Then, other ships have a chance to support, starting with any CLAAs in the TG. Ships add their AA fire in turn, until one ship fails the chance to add fire. So an unlucky ship could be all on its own, and a lucky one could get the whole TG blazing away at its attackers, with most somewhere in between.

Gregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

I though I might add some comments to the question of AA fire in CAW.
Whenever a ship comes under attack from aircraft, here's a summary of what happens.
The ship under under attack always contributes its AA values to its own defense.
Heavy AA attacks high and medium level bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers prior to them starting their dive.
Light AA attacks medium and low level bombers, including torpedo bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers while they are executing their dive.
As far as other ships making an AA contribution, here is the procedure. All ships in the target's TG, and any TG in the same hex with an escort order, are pooled then put in a queue, CLAA types first, then by displacement. The first ship in the queue is tested against it's TG's admin value and it's own AA fire control, among other things and if it passes the test, its AA values are added to the defense and the next ship in the queue is tested. This process continues until a ship fails the test. Once a failure has occured, that's the end of the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

I though I might add some comments to the question of AA fire in CAW.
Whenever a ship comes under attack from aircraft, here's a summary of what happens.
The ship under under attack always contributes its AA values to its own defense.
Heavy AA attacks high and medium level bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers prior to them starting their dive.
Light AA attacks medium and low level bombers, including torpedo bombers, and has a chance to attack dive bombers while they are executing their dive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

What about 5/34" VT fuzed fire? When you combined that with radar fire control, you could effectively kill low level attackers far away from the ship. It's why the USN wanted the minimal gun size for postwar AA to be 3", as it was the smallest size capable of having a VT fuze.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owl

So if only the ships in a particular TF get to apply AA fire - then in the Midway scenario the carrier TF should contain the (IIRC) screen force with 2 BB's, 2 CA's and some lighter ships. Maybe it doesn't make that much difference, but in the actual battle these ships were directly in the CV formation with Nagumo's carriers.

yeah I know... nit pick, nit pick. In any case thanks for the info on the AA fire routines!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owl

So if only the ships in a particular TF get to apply AA fire - then in the Midway scenario the carrier TF should contain the (IIRC) screen force with 2 BB's, 2 CA's and some lighter ships. Maybe it doesn't make that much difference, but in the actual battle these ships were directly in the CV formation with Nagumo's carriers.

yeah I know... nit pick, nit pick. In any case thanks for the info on the AA fire routines!!!

As Ian mentioned, ships in another TG in the same hex and with Escort orders are equally eligible to contribute to AA fire.

Ah, my mistake - sorry did not catch that detail. Thanks!

Gregor

quote:

With the above in mind, I have a question about anti-aircraft fire and it's impact on aircraft casualties. Apart from raw data, the number of guns and the firepower that each projects, is there any difference, at all, between the way that the IJN and USN task groups are modeled?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

I can't recall a single one that damned the game because of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

They will be corrected in the forthcoming patch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Well, I think you're making too big a deal about this. Especially early in the war, it didn't matter what your AA doctrine was, AA was simply not going to make a huge difference to the outcome of a strike. As the war progressed, both sides frantically added as much AA weaponry as possible and naturally got better at AA defence but it was never good enough to really guarantee protection.

We have to create a system that works for all periods of the war and if its not exactly and totally perfect for any one part then that's something that we can live with, especially as AA fire is just not that critical to the overall outcome of a strike. I certainly don't believe that its a factor which unduly affect the outcome of a multiplayer battle. Your decisions as admiral are simply much more critical.

Carriers at War is a historical wargame, and therefore its design will depend on a particular view of history. I make no apologies if our view and thw eight we give to various historical parameters is different to yours, because it would be astounding if they were the same. I would say that the CAW system is flexible enough such that if you want to embody your view in a scenario, then you can probably do so.

There will always be a tension between historical facts, as we see them, and multiplayer balance. We are trying to create a system that recreates historical events, not create an ahistorical level playing field.

Your crack about the game being twenty years in development cuts both ways you know. I've been doing this job for over 20 years myself, and I have seen almost every piece of customer feedback about CAW in that time. I can't recall a single one that damned the game because of it.

Gregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It's the nature of computer games that they have a sort of "Wizard of Oz" quality about them, of a mysterious fella behind a curtain manipulating all sorts of levers and switches which generate this result or that, the mechanics of which are largely unknown to the folks who play the game. It's terrific to have someone "in the know" stop by and attempt to illuminate some of the inner workings of a game as complex as the likes of Carriers at War.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

The game's instability?

The lack of play balance?

The instability in multiplayer?

The OOB inaccuracies?

The CAP bug?

The F-U bug?

The full-speed for damaged ships bug?

The scenario results bug?

The instant-arm, instant launch cycle for strike aircraft?

The total disregard for the historical research that's occurred since the game was conceived?


PoE (aka ivanmoe)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

I want to love this game, but until these things are dealt with, its impossible. Really hope there will be a serious patch to address these issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

I thank PoE very much for all of his work in documenting the things that are making many of us pull our hair out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It's not making me any friends among the development team, but that's okay. I hated being under NDA for all those years, because I continually had to parse my comments and criticism in the spirit of professional courtesy. Well, no more. I'm a civilian, now, and I can call 'em like I see 'em. And frankly, the "hey, we've been doing this for twenty years, so get lost," attitude, hereabouts, isn't gonna cut it.

One thing that I would encourage anyone who is dissatisfied to do is contact David Heath at Matrix Games, and provide him with a polite but pointed piece of your mind as to the soundness of the game that his concern accepted for publishing on behalf of the developer. While the act in itself can't remedy your game issues, perhaps it'll encourage him to be more discriminating in the future.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dale H

I have little knowledge of the weapons capabilities & nitty-gritty tactical details of fleet combat in WW2. I bought CAW because I thought it would be an interesting combat simulator & hoped it might teach me a bit about carrier tactics. I admit I have only tinkered with the game some & I am trying to work my way through the scenarios learning as I go. However the 'fella behind a curtain' is giving me fits.

I can't find in the Manual or game details about how long it takes for aircraft to arm & fuel, take-off & reach assembly point, recover, etc. or how long it takes to prepare aircraft after they are landed/ recovered before they can be launched again? How can I be expected to be able to master tactics without knowing this kind of essential information? I need to be shown in more or less detail what is occuring with each air element as it goes about its task.

I understand aircraft on a mission will likely be out of communication for various reasons & I am not entitled to instantaneous supply of info on demand about their progress. In real life as a commander I wouldn't know about the status of a strike until aircraft from the strike had returned & I debriefed the pilots.

I realise I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier & I have the attention span of a gnat but I am really struggling to learn this game. The tutorial shows how to use the interface & run the game well & the game is still a fantastic experience. A lot of talent & effort has been expended to produce it & I really don't like to complain because I know how hard it is to make a game like this. On the other hand I hope you can understand my dilemma. I may be alone in my observations but then again I may not be.