Carriers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Carriers

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 >> Carriers

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carriers - 2/6/2001 8:55:00 PM

WebRider

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/6/2001
From: Houston/Texas
Status: offline

I've played all the pacific war games, I even playtested Pacific War and Carrier Strike for SSI, Gary, David Landry. I've played QQP's rip off of South Pacific c64 game. If you dont have detailed carrier operations and plane to ship battles your missing the boat. I hate to see Norm Krogers influence on Gary's work, I've tested a few of his games and never liked his attrition modles, although it would have worked in a pacific war scale. I dont know but a pacific war game without detailed carrier battles is missing the whole point of the pacific war, carriers and air power. I was so excited about these two upcomming games until I read how you were planning on handling the carriers. I hope I hope I hope I'm wrong, in this case I would love to be wrong. I hate to post negativly here but that is just my thoughts. Its been years since I've played a carrier game. ------------------ The Red Dragon looks thru the purple haze of the window pane at an orange sunshine.

_____________________________

The Red Dragon looks thru the purple haze of the window pane at an orange sunshine.

Post #: 1

- 2/7/2001 12:43:00 AM

Joel Billings

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

There are carrier battles resolved in detail by airstrikes flying from the carriers, as well as air to ship combat. This game shows the impact of carriers and airbases as they are the focus around which most operations occur. However, this is not a minute by minute or even hour by hour resolution of each day. The use of carriers and the carrier battles that happen are usually the most important factor in determining what the player's options are. If I have carriers and you don't you won't be able to move forward from your current airbases. If I have enough carrier power, or use it wisely in coordination with other naval power, I will probably be able to move into enemy controlled waters and launch invasions of enemy bases (assuming the enemy land based air can't overwhelm my carriers). This is the heart of operations in the Pacific and we think that UV and WitP will show this in a way that allows players strategy and tactics to ultimately determine the outcome of the game. All that said, these games just might not be for you if you are looking for detailed resolution and tight control over all aspects of each carrier engagement. That's ok, someday when we make a better Carrier Strike we might have something for you. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to WebRider)

Post #: 2

- 2/7/2001 2:26:00 AM

WebRider

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/6/2001
From: Houston/Texas
Status: offline

Thats my point if they are not for me the who. I cant wait for another carrier strike or Battles of the SouthPacific(c-64,386 era) which incorperated detailed carrier operations with an over all strategic command, x number of plane replacements per week and squadron expierence, squadrons lose and gain exp. When you all do that I there, and will talk my friends into getting a copy too. But in a Pacific war game the entire pucker factor comes from picking when and where to launch your strikes. If you dont have control its just the computer screwed me factor. I will wait and see if I can build entheusiasim* for these games.

_____________________________

The Red Dragon looks thru the purple haze of the window pane at an orange sunshine.

(in reply to WebRider)

Post #: 3

- 2/7/2001 3:05:00 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

All I can say WR is there's probably just as many people waiting for a Windows based Pacific War strategic game as there are that are waiting for the type of game you describe. Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for you, the strategic will come first. But you're right, a new tactical-level carrier game needs to be done. BTW, I still play Carrier Strike & Carriers at War.

_____________________________

(in reply to WebRider)

Post #: 4

- 2/7/2001 9:30:00 PM

WebRider

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/6/2001
From: Houston/Texas
Status: offline

Battles of the SouthPacific was strategic with tactical carrier attributes, it can be done, I like the strategic elements blended in or its just a carrier fight.

_____________________________

The Red Dragon looks thru the purple haze of the window pane at an orange sunshine.

(in reply to WebRider)

Post #: 5

- 2/19/2001 10:44:00 AM

Greg Wilmoth

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/18/2001
From: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Al: All I can say WR is there's probably just as many people waiting for a Windows based Pacific War strategic game as there are that are waiting for the type of game you describe. Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for you, the strategic will come first. But you're right, a new tactical-level carrier game needs to be done. BTW, I still play Carrier Strike & Carriers at War.

I recently finished reading Eric Bergerund's book on the air war in this campaign, Fire in the Sky. In it he points out that while the carrier battles were dramatic and grabbed lost of press, the land-based air flew far more sorties, dropped many more bombs, and shot down far more aircraft. At the strategic level, Bergerund claims the Allied land-based air won the air campaign by grinding down Japanese airpower in a war of attrition.

_____________________________

(in reply to WebRider)

Post #: 6