RE: Carriers at War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/19/2006 1:21:22 AM)

The "on station" function was the reason I stopped playing CAW and trashed it as totally unrealistic. Not only can a CV TF be slaughtered by SC TF's, if a US CV TF is stuck "on station", an IJN CV TF can stand off out of range and pummel the USN CV's.

Sorry, but if the "on station" rule is still being implemented, I'm not buying. I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Carriers at War (11/19/2006 2:21:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The "on station" function was the reason I stopped playing CAW and trashed it as totally unrealistic. Not only can a CV TF be slaughtered by SC TF's, if a US CV TF is stuck "on station", an IJN CV TF can stand off out of range and pummel the USN CV's.

Sorry, but if the "on station" rule is still being implemented, I'm not buying. I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.

I understand your concerns, but someone needs to note that U.S. carrier TF were MORE vulnerable to the possibility of surface action PRECISELY because of the shorter "legs" of its a/c that you mention, particularly the old Devastator model.

IMO, the only way that this becomes a deal-killer is if the surface-engagment is automatic, one that can be arranged by anyone who's playing the IJN and seeks such an event KNOWING that it's a slam-dunk. That'd be too weird.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/19/2006 3:19:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The "on station" function was the reason I stopped playing CAW and trashed it as totally unrealistic. Not only can a CV TF be slaughtered by SC TF's, if a US CV TF is stuck "on station", an IJN CV TF can stand off out of range and pummel the USN CV's.

Sorry, but if the "on station" rule is still being implemented, I'm not buying. I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.

I understand your concerns, but someone needs to note that U.S. carrier TF were MORE vulnerable to the possibility of surface action PRECISELY because of the shorter "legs" of its a/c that you mention, particularly the old Devastator model.

IMO, the only way that this becomes a deal-killer is if the surface-engagment is automatic, one that can be arranged by anyone who's playing the IJN and seeks such an event KNOWING that it's a slam-dunk. That'd be too weird.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

That's not quite the problem you think it is. At the Battle of Midway, Spruance launched his TBD's at 175 miles, and then closed the enemy. Point Option was plotted for an average of 24kts on a base course of 240, IIRC. 4 planes of VT-6 (that had not been shot down) made it back.

This "on station" thing is just cock-n-bull. A serious amount of thought should be invested to properly dissuade players from the single-pulse kamikaze missions. For example: a severe point penalty for attacks that suffer a high rate of "failed to return" aircraft.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Carriers at War (11/20/2006 6:04:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.


Particulars aside, were the CaW update to be published as described, do you know of another carrier-focused, computer wargame/simulation that'll handle matters in a more satisfactory fashion and can be played TCP/IP? If so, I'll BUY IT.

PoE



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/20/2006 7:05:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.


Particulars aside, were the CaW update to be published as described, do you know of another carrier-focused, computer wargame/simulation that'll handle matters in a more satisfactory fashion and can be played TCP/IP? If so, I'll BUY IT.

PoE

I won't discuss other games here, that's not the point. What is the point is that, imHO, there is a major design flaw (not bug) in the way this game handles CV TF movement after a strike is launched. It's a game breaker for me. Maybe other people can overlook it and enjoy the game. I can't.

And it's not like I'm sitting here, nit-picking or just shooting from the hip and not offering a solution. I want to buy this game. Like I said, I don't want to buy a re-hash of something that broke the game for me.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 3:09:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.


Particulars aside, were the CaW update to be published as described, do you know of another carrier-focused, computer wargame/simulation that'll handle matters in a more satisfactory fashion and can be played TCP/IP? If so, I'll BUY IT.

PoE

I won't discuss other games here, that's not the point. What is the point is that, imHO, there is a major design flaw (not bug) in the way this game handles CV TF movement after a strike is launched. It's a game breaker for me. Maybe other people can overlook it and enjoy the game. I can't.

And it's not like I'm sitting here, nit-picking or just shooting from the hip and not offering a solution. I want to buy this game. Like I said, I don't want to buy a re-hash of something that broke the game for me.

I'd love to be able to pick and choose from a menu of features that I'd like included in the game. Heck, I'd be spotting aircraft on the hangar-deck, were it an option. The thing is, that's not gonna happen.

Personally, I'll feel pretty darned lucky if I get a spruced up CaW that'll allow me to play a friend over an IP connection. And I'll jump on the package like white-onto-rice because I know that there's a really good chance that this as good as it's EVER gonna get, what with hot computer wargaming titles selling copies in the four figure range. Quality programming talent is expensive, and not a lot of it is gonna flow towards a project characterized by those kind of sales.

Thanks for sharing, [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



RayWolfe -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 11:48:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The "on station" function was the reason I stopped playing CAW and trashed it as totally unrealistic.
Sorry, but if the "on station" rule is still being implemented, I'm not buying. I'm not throwing money after what I already hated about an otherwise great game.

(My emphasis.)

Doncha just love the internet for allowing all the balanced and measured views that people can express? [:D]

Ray



Ursa MAior -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 12:23:44 PM)

Well I'd really like to play this one, but I definitely wont be giving away money for a facelift version, where the code is hardly changed, only the gfx and sfx is updated.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 5:34:17 PM)

@Ursa MAior:

Do you have a preference as to opponent, computer or human?

I definitely do. I like playing against people. Adding TCP/IP so that I can play over the internet is a BIG deal. And it's not a "gimme" on the part of the developers, either. It'll take a lot of coding and testing if it's to work properly.

I've worked with enough software developers now to know how they operate. They develop an engine and then xmas-tree stuff on it. They add features. If they make a change to the underlying code, it needs to be something "easy," meaning something that won't break the game.

And I still want to hear from someone that has knowledge of a game that does what CaW does, only better, one that currently exists, or is under development.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Ursa MAior -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 6:23:03 PM)

With all respect what does has to do with my statement?

All I said that for me stationary CV TFs ARE unacceptable. What was good in 1994 is not accptable in 2006. I have the same opinion about Harpoon 3.

On the other hand I like UV/WitP (with all theor bugs) probably will buy this one too if it is brought up to 2006 standards, along with EiA if it ever gets finished and Hussargames's next game if it is Punic/Frederick the great/nappy.

Just dont force me to fall in love at first sight with Ms World 1966 in a tight jeans and a small top, after her Botox course.



RayWolfe -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 6:35:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
And I still want to hear from someone that has knowledge of a game that does what CaW does, only better, one that currently exists, or is under development.

You're wasting your time her. PofE.
Do you have any connection with teenage children?
"It's not fair! I don't want it! You can't make me!" And similar expressions come to mind.
When it's published and we're all having a great time, they will come round. And if they don't? Well we know who will be losing out, don't we?
Ray



Ursa MAior -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 6:42:45 PM)

Thanks for being so overly postive and polite, wish I were a teenager, but since no dev have confirmed until now that this issue will be solved, even though a number of persons have expressed how negative they feel about it, if you forgive me I am not spending my money on an oldtimer dressed up as a teenager.




David Sandberg -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 11:06:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
You're wasting your time her. PofE.
Do you have any connection with teenage children?
"It's not fair! I don't want it! You can't make me!" And similar expressions come to mind.
When it's published and we're all having a great time, they will come round. And if they don't? Well we know who will be losing out, don't we?


I think you're missing something: many of the people in this forum who have expressed concern with this aspect of CAW won't be "losing out" because we have already played the game many times. I'm referring to the original CAW, of course, which the new version apparently won't be markedly different from in terms of the fundamental game design. A graphics update is certainly a nice thing to have, but I for one didn't stop playing the original CAW because of the graphics. It was this "no fleet movement while airstrikes aloft" issue that eventually made me give up on the game, albeit sadly.

Here's the scenario that I think is more likely: several months after release of the new CAW, many of the people who are currently dismissive of any concerns about the "no fleet movement while airstrikes aloft" issue will be coming back here and complaining that this very same issue screws up too many games and needs to be fixed in a patch. And the people like myself who already knew this beforehand and were ignored and laughed off as "teenage children" will just have to pat ourselves on the back for not buying the same flawed game a second time. (This particular one won't be smiling, though. The difference between a fatally flawed gaming system and a brilliant one can be a very fine line, and I would very much have liked to see the new CAW cross over from the former to the latter category, because I believe it came very close before ... again, save for this fundamental flaw.)



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/21/2006 11:45:08 PM)

Geez, I thought I brought up a cogent point and a workable solution without a lot of whining.

I played Uncommon Valor heavily, particularly PBeM, as I do now with WitP (of which I was a member of the Test Team).

For what it's worth, at noon today I fired up CaW 1994, and I'll be damned if the "on station" feature didn't cost me 2 CVs! Enemy Battle Line made a beeline for my CVs.

No way do I buy this game without that being changed, no way.




LitFuel -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 1:26:39 AM)

Then don't and quit whining [8|]



David Sandberg -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 1:34:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
Geez, I thought I brought up a cogent point and a workable solution without a lot of whining.


I believe my proposed solution is workable as well, and I like the additional realism of not allowing the carrier TF to just navigate any old way it wants while an airstrike is aloft and expecting to find them at a specific recovery point at a specific time.

However, I guess that I should put on my developer's hat, flip sides for a brief moment and acknowledge that there would almost certainly be more involved in making any changes of this type than just "unlocking movement". I suspect that, since in old CAW the fleet doesn't move during the airstrike, that strike range calculations as well as any "searching for a deck to land on" calculations are relatively simplified, and would need to be expanded upon to accommodate moving carrier TFs. There would also probably be other parts of the game engine that may break down with any change that enables carriers to move while they have airstrikes aloft (whether that be free movement like in your proposal, or locked-in movement like in my proposal). For one thing, the AI would probably need to be enhanced to allow AI carriers to also use this ability in a somewhat intelligent manner (rather than just giving the player a capability that the AI lacks), and some of the scenarios would probably need to be retested and rebalanced (because of the greater difficulty for surface groups to chase down enemy carriers and bring them to surface combat, and particularly if there are also changes in the victory point penalties for non-returning aircraft).

Basically I just wouldn't want anyone to underestimate the scope of the development and testing tasks that any of the proposed solutions would likely entail - we're not talking about a mere day or two of effort here. However (switching hats again now), I still think the game will suffer for the lack of any such change, and that the work would be worth doing and would pay for itself in the long run. Sometimes a developer simply has to bite the bullet, take the time that's needed and fix something that otherwise is going to be sufficiently wrong to harm the product as a whole.

quote:

For what it's worth, at noon today I fired up CaW 1994, and I'll be damned if the "on station" feature didn't cost me 2 CVs! Enemy Battle Line made a beeline for my CVs.


Yeah, unfortunately that brings back memories of the endings of a lot of my CAW games as well. :(



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 3:30:41 AM)

David, you make good points. There is no such thing as a quick fix for it, and I should know better. I campaigned long and hard for changes in how subs were handled in WitP (it may have been coincidence that they changed it and nothing to do with me, so I won't claim credit). It required some significant re-coding, but it made the game less "gamey" if you will.

If you want playability vs a simulation, "On station" kills playablity, because your carriers DO get killed being stuck waiting for their strike to return. Ideally what you want to do as a carrier commander is to launch your strike and continue to close with the enemy to cut down the range for follow up strikes, especially if you play the USN side with early short range aircraft. I played a few more scenarios, and the same kinds of things would happen.

Personally, I'd love it if someone wanted to try a "dump and run" kamikaze mission against me, because I had an opponent try that against me in the board game "Flat Top" years ago. For every "strategy" (read: exploit) there is a counter trick.



RayWolfe -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 11:10:03 AM)

I don't know if you guys have deliberately missed the point of my "teenagers" posting but deliberately or not you HAVE missed my point. My point is that whether you have a fair criticism or not, the language that has been used verges on the sulk and sound like the "it's so unfair" reaction that a teenager might make when deprived of something that they consider a basic human right; like staying in bed all weekend.
You do make a fair point, the developer has given their defence and yet you go on and on with expressions like: game breaker, deal killer, cock & bull, throwing money away, money for a facelift, fundamental flaw, fatal flaw and so on. Ending with: "No way do I buy this game without that being changed, no way".
Fine! We got the message!
The developers do listen, SSG are one of very small band of people who try to give us what we want and receive very small reward for so doing because they love the genre as much as we do. Give them a break and stop shouting to odds at every opportunity. You should make your point but not in a way that says if you can't get your own way, it's the end of the world as we know it.
It isn't.
Ray



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 4:26:46 PM)

I feel the love.



David Sandberg -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 5:19:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
I don't know if you guys have deliberately missed the point of my "teenagers" posting but deliberately or not you HAVE missed my point. My point is that whether you have a fair criticism or not, the language that has been used verges on the sulk and sound like the "it's so unfair" reaction that a teenager might make when deprived of something that they consider a basic human right; like staying in bed all weekend.
You do make a fair point, the developer has given their defence and yet you go on and on with expressions like: game breaker, deal killer, cock & bull, throwing money away, money for a facelift, fundamental flaw, fatal flaw and so on. Ending with: "No way do I buy this game without that being changed, no way".
Fine! We got the message!
The developers do listen, SSG are one of very small band of people who try to give us what we want and receive very small reward for so doing because they love the genre as much as we do. Give them a break and stop shouting to odds at every opportunity. You should make your point but not in a way that says if you can't get your own way, it's the end of the world as we know it.
It isn't.


From what I can see, many of the people who have expressed misgivings about this issue are not sulking, and I dare say that my choice of words on the topic has been far more circumspect than your own (as the backlash against those words of yours demonstrates). For example, describing something as a "fundamental/fatal flaw", as I did, is in no way equivalent to a whine of "it's so unfair". "Fatal" in this case means "serious enough to cause players to stop playing the game" ... and that's not a whine, it's a simple fact. This issue did make me (and others, judging from their posts) stop playing the original version of CAW; therefore, a description of the flaw as "fatal" is entirely accurate, at least for us.

Whether or not SSG adjusts the game's behavior is certainly not the end of the world. In fact it makes very little difference to me at this point ... it's only a game, and I simply don't intend to purchase this particular game unless I happen to hear after the release that something was done to rectify this particular problem (and even then I may be too busy with other things my life to bother about it). I'm not losing any sleep over whether that happens or not, in fact I had hardly been thinking about CAW since ... not until I felt compelled to re-enter this discussion to defend my earlier posts on this topic from your characterization of such posts as "teenage rantings".



RayWolfe -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 5:42:34 PM)

Having to have the last word without adding anything new is another sign. As is saying "and even then I may be too busy with other things my life to bother about it". Ooooh! [:-]

Ray
PS If you still want the last word, you may. I've finished making my point. In fact you've made it for me. Bye



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War (11/22/2006 6:25:25 PM)

If the discussion is "Rantings and Ravings of Teenagers", please start your own thread. The rest of us will continue discussing the game, and not handing out decrees on other people's behaviour.

That being said, let's put our heads together and offer up some workable solutions. I won't have time to work on this more fully until later.

(BTW, a major difference between a teenager and an adult is that a teenager will complain without often being able to offer a reasonable solution)



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers at War "on Station" (11/23/2006 11:32:52 PM)

Having spent the last few days playing the 1994 version of this game, I can truly say that watching a Surface Combat TF approach my carriers "waiting for strike recovery" was dis-heartening. Watching damaged enemy ships pull away as my carriers were "waiting for strike recovery" was maddening. Not being able to close the distance after a launch thereby enabling me to launch shorter range aircraft and then cut down their return leg was discouraging Having any of the 3 conditions above occur is NOT fun.

We're not looking to be able to "turn carriers into the wind to launch" or have to "spot each aircraft" for a strike. I like NOT having to do those things, but there should be a freedom of movement. At the time of launching a strike, the player should have to designate a new "move to" position. If the carrier is not within 30 miles of "Point Option", or the return returning aircraft don't cross the over the TF on the returning flight leg, then Ops losses kick in. "Failed to return" ops losses should count more as an order of magnitide.

There's got to be a way to fix this.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Carriers at War "on Station" (11/24/2006 12:22:12 AM)

There ARE many ways to fix it. Question is: Is there an INTENTION? This issue is not clear yet. Is this one a facelift or a complete plastic surgery where only the bones remain (check under Cher[;)])?



Marauders -> RE: Carriers at War (12/9/2006 6:48:50 AM)

quote:

I understand what you are saying about not allowing players a "gamey" exploit like launching a strike with no intention to recover it, and I fully agree with that goal.  However, I believe the better and more realistic way to prevent this is the implementation that I've now described more than once: specifically, that the player has to lock in his fleet movement when the strike is created, and the software only allows the strike to be created if the player's requested fleet movement would allow the airstrike to be recovered. 


I agree.  That is more realistic, and it handles Ian Trout's misgivings as well.

Of course, the game AI would have to send the planes to the correct spot, so that would require more coding.




AP514 -> RE: Carriers "ON STATION" (1/4/2007 5:28:48 PM)

I have to AGREE the " ON STATION "  Will be a deal breaker for me as well........

What a great suggestion Setting your TF's Course before launch and or a Big VP loss
for A/C that "DITCH".

(Ivanmoe) It would be like buying Waterloo again. It would have better graphics
and maybe a few new bells and wistles. But in the End you still have the False Routs
the Charge pass thru's..All the Program/things you could not get past that made you drop the
original game in the first place.
So why buy a a updated version of the CAW Game if the same things that made you drop the
original are still there??
Do not get me wrong I love/Loved CAW. I just can't see paying $40-$50 for the new version
when I can just dig up the original from the garage......Yes I still have CAW and Carrier Strike.

To be fair I will wait until some reviews are in after the game is released. If one of the Suggestions
are added before release you can add me to the PRE-ORDER list  [&o]

AP514
   The Greatest WATERLOO player ever



RayWolfe -> RE: Carriers "ON STATION" (1/4/2007 6:57:12 PM)


[:D]
OK Messrs Trout & Keating, I think you’ve got to accept the inevitable. Your new game, unseen, is TOTALLY unplayable ... apparently.

So, 17,237 gamers are going to buy it and only play it for an average of 15.628 years each and 3 are not going to buy and will spend those 15.628 years looking through the window saying "I told you so".

What you going to do about that then?
Ray



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Carriers "ON STATION" (1/5/2007 3:23:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe


[:D]
OK Messrs Trout & Keating, I think you’ve got to accept the inevitable. Your new game, unseen, is TOTALLY unplayable ... apparently.

So, 17,237 gamers are going to buy it and only play it for an average of 15.628 years each and 3 are not going to buy and will spend those 15.628 years looking through the window saying "I told you so".

What you going to do about that then?
Ray

So no one can voice a concern?

Good God man! Do you not see the folly of squelching a full and fair (albeit emotional) discussion of what is a major flash point?

I will grant to you my use of strident language was over the top if you will give me this: the "On Station" feature is too great of a compromise on what would be a pretty darn good game.



CptHowdy -> RE: Carriers "ON STATION" (1/5/2007 5:12:58 AM)

very interested in this game but after reading this thread i just have one question. will this game be a rusty ford pinto with a new paintjob or is it actually a remake that is improved in every way?



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Carriers "ON STATION" (1/5/2007 5:27:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AP514

(Ivanmoe) It would be like buying Waterloo again. It would have better graphics
and maybe a few new bells and wistles. But in the End you still have the False Routs
the Charge pass thru's..All the Program/things you could not get past that made you drop the
original game in the first place.
So why buy a a updated version of the CAW Game if the same things that made you drop the
original are still there??
Do not get me wrong I love/Loved CAW. I just can't see paying $40-$50 for the new version
when I can just dig up the original from the garage......Yes I still have CAW and Carrier Strike.

To be fair I will wait until some reviews are in after the game is released. If one of the Suggestions
are added before release you can add me to the PRE-ORDER list [&o]

AP514
The Greatest WATERLOO player ever


Hi AP(airframe and powerplant)514, [;)]

Pickin's were pretty slim in Santa's stocking this year, computer-wargaming wise. Although I built myself a new machine, there's not a whole lot loaded on it for play:

MTW2
Panzer Command
Conquest of the Aegean
CFS3/Over Flanders Fields (Buckner plays this one online, BTW)

While there are a lot of older titles on the shelf that I still enjoy, there aren't a whole lot of fresh games in the pipeline. For me, the prospect of the developer polishing up a game like CaW and putting in IP play strikes me as a genuine blessing. I know that it's not perfect, but I've got a buddy that lives out-ot-state and we can go at each other, tooth and nail, with this update. This of course assumes that the IP component will be stable and playable.

Only time will tell, [8D]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875