Carrier Strike - One of the best game ever!! (IMHO)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Carrier Strike - One of the best game ever!! (IMHO)

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Carrier Strike - One of the best game ever!! (IMHO)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carrier Strike - One of the best game ever!! (IMHO) - 8/12/2001 2:37:00 AM

KING

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: Suomi, Finland
Status: offline

Just played again that game from year 1992, made by himself Gary Grigsby and I must say it is still one of the best navy game ever. Not well known, I had never earlier heard about it before I get it with Twenty Wargame Classics collection some 4 years ago. Bloody air strikes against Carrier fleets. You never know when enemy is coming... until it�s too late avoid them. You must find them before they finds you... Simple but good. No much brain works needed ;) Only bad thing in game is that even you won few first battles as Japanese player, Americans wins anyway. Maybe not by scores, but battles are always same, strict historical, ending to last historical carrier battle in Marianas. Therefore a question: Is there in Matrixgames any plans to do new version of Carrier Strike? It would be even better game if campaigns would be randomized so that if you win one Carrier battle with huge victory, next battle would be battled in the waters of Los Angeles (or Tokyo) instead of the Marianas�, for example. What you think about that? Would you play it? I would.

_____________________________

...You all know me and I know you. I know that everyone of you is prepared to do his duty until death...

Post #: 1

- 8/12/2001 5:50:00 AM

davidmiller

Posts: 53
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: florissant, mo, usa
Status: offline

I agree. That was one of my favorite games early on , and it did keep you on the eadge of your seat playing it. Trying to reload your planes and making sure of your CAP before any enemy strikes happen made the game exciting to play. Personally, I feel Matrix is concentrating on completing and releasing some of their anticipated games and they may be shorthanded on taking on any new project. I agree with you however, that I would love to see someone update Carrier Strike.

_____________________________

rabid lobo

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 2

- 8/12/2001 9:20:00 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Yep!..one of my favorites too!..unfortunately the newer computers made it more difficult to play dos programs and my sound never worked unless i set it for "pc sounds."..always crashed otherwise,but the game itself was real "beer and pretzels" and i loved being able to load the planes as i saw fit..for it's day,the graphics of the planes and ships was good too!..lotsa potential for a re-work.. :rolleyes:

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 3

- 8/13/2001 6:02:00 PM

Jasper

Posts: 174
Joined: 5/29/2001
From: I am from Mars
Status: offline

I used to love that game until my asshole friend hack the game and played with jet fighter.............

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 4

- 8/14/2001 7:02:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Carrier strike's only good point with myself was that it introduced a campaign element for carrier warfare for the first time. Other than that i found the game engine to very inferior to it's ancestor 'Carrier Force' Mind you i'm not talking about the interface or other playability features. I'm reffering to the combat resolution and certain quirks that were revealed in the game engine through actual play. The fact that Grigsby went back to the tried and true (not to mention exciting) format of 'Carrier Force' and 'USAAF' when he created his masterpiece 'Pacific War' is testiment alone to that. The seperation of the AA and Air to sea attack phase was disjointed and lacked excitement. As for game play, the Fighter vs Fighter combat was ridiculously low on casualties except in the latest months of the campaign when the USN side had overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment. Prior to that one almost did'nt need to bother sending up a CAP as they'd be lucky to bag half a dozen planes at best. Given Matrix's recent and excellent work revamping "Pacific War", i'd much rather see them overhaul Grigsby's classics, Warship and Battlecruiser. We need a good tactical naval wargame for the WWI and WWII era's.

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 5

- 8/14/2001 2:48:00 PM

nyarlathotep

Posts: 169
Joined: 4/28/2001
Status: offline

OMG KING you and I are on the same wavelength. This is so creepy I had the utmost intention to ask about this when I got into work tonight and when I get here what do I see? An exact mirror of the question that was in my mind! YOU ARE THE MAN! So, Matrix, when will we see it?

I was especially fond of the micromanagement of each squadron. Payload, how many to send, and where to send.
It was tough to win as Japanese but not impossible. Just had to keep sinking the U.S. carriers faster than they could be sent and ignore the surface TF. Remeber, nothing was more heartbreaking than having a sub torpedo your flattop with a deck full of loaded planes!

_____________________________

That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H.P.L.

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 6

- 8/20/2001 1:35:00 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

I don't know about Matrix, but Gary, Keith and I would like to do another tactical carrier game in the future. Given our current commitments, however, it will be 2003 at least before we get around to doing another carrier game. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 7

- 8/21/2001 1:51:00 AM

Ironfist738

Posts: 139
Joined: 4/30/2001
From: Cincinnati,Ohio.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by KING:
Just played again that game from year 1992, made by himself Gary Grigsby and I must say it is still one of the best navy game ever. Not well known, I had never earlier heard about it before I get it with Twenty Wargame Classics collection some 4 years ago. Bloody air strikes against Carrier fleets. You never know when enemy is coming... until it�s too late avoid them. You must find them before they finds you... Simple but good. No much brain works needed Only bad thing in game is that even you won few first battles as Japanese player, Americans wins anyway. Maybe not by scores, but battles are always same, strict historical, ending to last historical carrier battle in Marianas. Therefore a question: Is there in Matrixgames any plans to do new version of Carrier Strike? It would be even better game if campaigns would be randomized so that if you win one Carrier battle with huge victory, next battle would be battled in the waters of Los Angeles (or Tokyo) instead of the Marianas�, for example. What you think about that? Would you play it? I would.

Hey that sounds cool. I never played the pc ver. but I do have the Boardgame. My six year old son loves to play it. What company has CarrierStrike and is it still avialable ?

_____________________________

SpWaW Game Veteran since 1991

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 8

- 8/21/2001 2:25:00 AM

KING

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: Suomi, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Ironfist738:
Hey that sounds cool. I never played the pc ver. but I do have the Boardgame. My six year old son loves to play it. What company has CarrierStrike and is it still avialable ?

I get it some 5 years ago from game collection named "20 Wargame Classics" (if I remember title right. I don�t have that game package near me right now.) It was published by SSI.

I don�t know does they still sell it, so you may find it easiest from used games markets. It�s DOS game so it�s possible that it won�t work correctly in today�s Operating Systems. However it works in my Windows 2000. [ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: KING ]

_____________________________

...You all know me and I know you. I know that everyone of you is prepared to do his duty until death...

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 9

- 8/21/2001 3:53:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

you can find the game at www.theunderdogs.org

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 10

- 8/21/2001 3:06:00 PM

nyarlathotep

Posts: 169
Joined: 4/28/2001
Status: offline

Ironfist I have the expansion for it too if you need me to email to you no problem.

_____________________________

That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H.P.L.

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 11

- 8/22/2001 1:49:00 AM

Rich Dionne

Posts: 436
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

Hi Guys, In case you're interested, I've been working on an interface tool linking Gary Grigsby's Pacific War and Carrier Strike games called PacLink. PacLink will port any 1700 mile by 1400 mile area of the Pacific War map into Carrier Strike, and it will bring every base, ship, and air-group in
the area with it. You can use PacLink to create new scenarios taken from Pacific War for play in Carrier Strike at an operational level. The entire Pacific Theatre is represented down to a 17 mile hex size. It’s free, and available for download at my website: http://home.earthlink.net/~tmflood/page3.html I'm still in the process of developing the tool, so you may find some bugs. Let me know what you encounter, and I’ll do my best to fix them. Some additional features I'm working on include porting the results of your Carrier Strike game back into Pacific War, and giving the player more control over land based air groups in Carrier Strike. I'd also like to develop the ability to create new scenarios in PacLink without the need to download from Pacific War. To get you started quick, I’ve included 2 scenarios created with PacLink: Pearl Harbor in savea, and Coral Sea in saveb. Regards, Rich Dionne

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 12

- 8/22/2001 2:29:00 AM

KING

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: Suomi, Finland
Status: offline

Thank you for link!!

_____________________________

...You all know me and I know you. I know that everyone of you is prepared to do his duty until death...

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 13

- 8/22/2001 6:47:00 AM

RayM

Posts: 310
Joined: 10/19/2000
From: Marlton, NJ USA
Status: offline

After all of the talk about Carrier Strike, I just had to find out for myself. What a game. Initial impression: In contrast to numerous successes playing PACWAR as the Allies, it really is humbling to see how fast the Japanese AI wipes you out. To get the hang of the game, I have been playing the Guadalcanal scenario for several days and I just continue to get my rear end waxed as the Allies. It truly is amazing to be told that not one but several 200+ aircraft strikes are headed your way and all you put can put up are 15-20 Wildcats per carrier as a CAP. And then the little a/c icon combat screen comes up and shows your 20 fighter against 200+ IJN a/c. What a show! Needless to say, I end up losing most if not all of my carriers in a week or two (often sooner) and then it's back to start for another round trying to figure out a better tactical approach. Absolutely amazing. I have tried separating the TF's geographically (i.e., S and E of the Solomons), moving them closer and further away from the Solomons but clearly I have to get close enough to launch strikes that stand a chance. The AI really models the longer range perfomance of the IJN a/c very well indeed. Likewise, the IJN a/c are very accurate in their attacks, while the US forces miss much more often than they hit. And what about the IJN TF's containing 4 CVs that generates those 200+ strikes? Admitedly, historical...but very dangerous. All things considered, CS really does make you pay attention. To try and keep me even, can anyone suggest some strategies for this scenario? I have not tried the others yet but may have to in order to see if they are all as difficult for the Allies. On the other hand, I guess this is probably part of the learning curve for this game, or I could be too aggressive in searching for and trying to attack the IJN TFs. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 14

- 8/23/2001 1:25:00 PM

Rich Dionne

Posts: 436
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

Here are some quick comments, Ray. Early on, the Allies suffer the disadvantages of shorter aircraft range and lower experience than the Japanese. The Japanese also use float planes effectively, leaving their carrier aircraft free to strike. Your one big advantage is that the Japanese do not yet have radar, so you stand a chance of catching their aircraft on deck. Another advantage is the ability of your DB's to carry 1000 lb bombs. These can devastate the enemy carriers. If possible, you should keep a screen of surface ships in front of your aircraft so you can see the Japanese strikes coming sooner. Unless you are close to the Japanese carrier TF, try to stay just out of range of the strike, and throw up a lot of fighters on CAP. This will weaken his air groups, and hopefully, some of his aircraft may need to ditch after trying to catch you. Try not to launch carrier strikes unless your close to the enemy. If you're at the end of your aircraft's range, your Devastators won't be able to reach the target, and your DB's won't be able to carry 1000 lb bombs. If you're in close, it's going to be bloody, but at least you can hit him with torpedo's and 1000 lb bombs. One final note, try to draw the enemy into range of your LBA. You can use this to augment your carriers with long range CAP, and hopefully your base commanders will launch strikes. Hope this helps. Hang in there, I was regularly battered when I first started. Regards, Rich

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 15

- 8/24/2001 9:11:00 AM

RayM

Posts: 310
Joined: 10/19/2000
From: Marlton, NJ USA
Status: offline

Thanks Rich for the info. Will give it a try. Ray

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 16

- 8/26/2001 4:39:00 PM

nyarlathotep

Posts: 169
Joined: 4/28/2001
Status: offline

It's been a while since I played Ray but I think I can add to Richs' strategy.
When playing as the U.S. I believe I held my airstrikes until after the IJN airstrikes. That way I could put all of my fighters on CAP so instead of 200+ against a few it was more like 200+ against approx 100 F4F.
If you make sure your decks are clear when the attack hits and maybe get some scattering by the enemy airstrike, with effective U.S. AA fire and some pure luck you CAN survive that first massive strike.
As soon as it's over send your strike with as much fighter support as you can and you will win. Believe it or not I remember finishing the campaign as U.S. with no carrier losses.

Good luck!

_____________________________

That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H.P.L.

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 17

- 8/26/2001 5:48:00 PM

KING

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: Suomi, Finland
Status: offline

I have done that same but as Japanese player

_____________________________

...You all know me and I know you. I know that everyone of you is prepared to do his duty until death...

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 18

- 8/27/2001 6:59:00 AM

RayM

Posts: 310
Joined: 10/19/2000
From: Marlton, NJ USA
Status: offline

Thanks to all for the ideas. I've played about 7 game months since and have managed to keep about even point-wise with the IJN. But the carrier losses are still sobering. I have also experimented with the computer running both sides to gather some insights into how the game organizes its strikes and how and where it moves. Very interesting and helpful. Having played up to May 43, I have couple of new questions. 1) The US forces (particularly the SBDs armed with 500 lbs bombs) are still missing quite alot, while the IJN forces are still quite accurate. I would hope that the historical decline in quality of the IJN pilot would start to take affect by now. Could this be because I haven't sunk more IJN carriers and hence the quality of the IJN pilot pool is fairly intact and in turn, US experience remains less? Or am I over-analysing the game? 2) During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?

3) Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo. One possible mitigating factor was that I had recently fought several surface battles in that area and the screen showed several IJN icons still lurking about on their way to the NW. Just wondering. Or does the AI give you just so much time (as fuel pts perhaps?) to get to Henderson Field before the it takes over? Just wondering.

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 19

- 8/27/2001 6:01:00 PM

nyarlathotep

Posts: 169
Joined: 4/28/2001
Status: offline

quote:

The US forces (particularly the SBDs armed with 500 lbs bombs) are still missing quite alot

You want to make sure if at all possible to load up with 1000lbers. That way when you do hit it packs a wallop that is hard for the carrier to recover from.

quote:

During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?

I believe certain paths, even though they look feasible, are actually blocked due to the fact its shallow water. Can anyone confirm?

quote:

Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo.

As far as I know the computer will automatically withdraw your units after X amount of damage has been taken or the end of the scenario has occurred. Have you been torpedoed by a sub with a deck full of planes yet? Pray that it doesn't happen

Cheers [ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: nyarlathotep ]

_____________________________

That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die.
H.P.L.

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 20

- 8/28/2001 12:55:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Joel, you snuck in there on me ... I for one would be very interested in working with 2 by 3 on a tactical Carrier game, but as you say it would be awhile!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 21

- 8/28/2001 8:25:00 AM

RayM

Posts: 310
Joined: 10/19/2000
From: Marlton, NJ USA
Status: offline

Thankfully, it hasn't happen yet. But I suspect that it probably will before I'm through with the scenario.

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 22

- 8/28/2001 10:46:00 AM

Rich Dionne

Posts: 436
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

Regarding your questions RayM, 1) "...Could this be because I haven't sunk more IJN carriers and hence the quality of the IJN pilot pool is fairly intact and in turn, US experience remains less? Or am I over-analysing the game?" In my experience, the results of your previous games does affect the experience of both your own and the opponent's. This may explain the difficulty your having with your SBD's. 2) "During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?" You can get hung up if you try to pass through a hexside that the computer thinks is a land hexside. This is the only explanation I can think of. 3) "Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo..." Did you get the message for a general withdrawal, and did a * appear in the TF message window? This would explain why the computer took over movement of your transport TF. Regards, Rich

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 23

- 8/28/2001 3:38:00 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

I just downloaded Carrier Strike this week along with the expansion pack from underdogs and it plays fine on my P350 with Win'98. After playing all the flashy high-end games, I am surprised how much I love this game. The graphics are so simple, but the gameplay is quite involving. There is nothing like trying to load up your planes, and get them airborne, before the IJN hit you. Currently, I've started a campaign and just finished Midway. Folks, it was not pretty. A real blood-bath. Playing as the Americans, I lost two fleet carriers (Yorktown and Hornet) and a destroyer, with another fleet carrier badly damaged and out of commission for a month. The IJN lost one heavy and one light carrier, with one battleship damaged. Both the Americans and the Japs lost well over one hundred aircraft each. Needless to say, when night fell, my poor forces limped away, heading east of Midway, with smoke billowing into the moonlit sky from the damaged Enterprise. I love this game. I can't wait until I steam up to Port Moresby and deal out a little retribution. It would be great if an update for this game was available, or if a new carrier game came out. I never expected to be hooked like this on a 9 year old game. It goes to show you. . . As for CAP, I found this works well: say you have 20 fighters. Instead of placing them on CAP in just one group, place them in four groups of five fighters. This can be done in flight operations, while the fighters are still on deck. Launch 5 fighters on CAP, then cycle through the missions, until you come to CAP again, and you'll notice a empty air group slot becomes available. Now launch the secod wave of 5 fighters, and cycle through the missions until you come to CAP again, and launch a third wave of 5 fighters, and so on. . . This means that the Japs have to pass through each group of fighters before they can hit my TF. With just 20 fighters on CAP in 4 groups of 5 planes each, I took out 25 Jap planes before they were able to attack my carriers. And CAP also causes disruption to the attacking Jap planes so they aren't as accurate as they would be otherwise. Great game. . . [ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Von Rom ]

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 24

- 8/28/2001 9:54:00 PM

KING

Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2000
From: Suomi, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Von Rom:
...I never expected to be hooked like this on a 9 year old game. It goes to show you. . . Great game. . . [ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Von Rom ]

I agree completely. I can�t understand why this day�s young kids says that game is not good if it doesn�t include at least 1280 x 1024 resolution with 32 bits colours. And demands 2 Gigahertz processor for their PC�s

. And those games are usually real bug-nest

. It seems to be hard for younger to understand that good graphic is not everything what you need. You need also good idea and most important thing: It should create a lot of excitement for player when you play game. Note: I�m 23 years old and started with Vic-20 so.. I�m old fart, I think

_____________________________

...You all know me and I know you. I know that everyone of you is prepared to do his duty until death...

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 25

- 8/28/2001 10:11:00 PM

RockinHarry

Posts: 2963
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Joel Billings:
I don't know about Matrix, but Gary, Keith and I would like to do another tactical carrier game in the future. Given our current commitments, however, it will be 2003 at least before we get around to doing another carrier game. Joel

Take all the time you need guys!

Meanwhile eagerly awaiting your other 3 games in development.

...They look more than just promising. _________
Harry

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 26

- 8/29/2001 8:26:00 PM

RayM

Posts: 310
Joined: 10/19/2000
From: Marlton, NJ USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Rich Dionne:
Regarding your questions RayM, 1) "...Could this be because I haven't sunk more IJN carriers and hence the quality of the IJN pilot pool is fairly intact and in turn, US experience remains less? Or am I over-analysing the game?" In my experience, the results of your previous games does affect the experience of both your own and the opponent's. This may explain the difficulty your having with your SBD's. ***It has gotten better as time goes by.*** 2) "During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?" You can get hung up if you try to pass through a hexside that the computer thinks is a land hexside. This is the only explanation I can think of. 3) "Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo..." Did you get the message for a general withdrawal, and did a * appear in the TF message window? This would explain why the computer took over movement of your transport TF. ***I don't recall seeing the message but I did get an * in the TF message window for my forces.***
Regards,
Rich

***The good news is that I finished my first campaign last night and won a decisive victory. One neat exchange involved one surface combat TF and one bombardment TF tangling with two IJN carrier TFs. I just waxed them good. Then I added carrier TF air strike to "help" things along. Quite satisfying indeed. This really is a great game in spite of not having as much control as you have in PACWAR.***

_____________________________

(in reply to KING)

Post #: 27