What am I missing? (Full Version)

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



Message

Adam Parker -> What am I missing? (6/9/2007 4:33:58 PM)

I posted this on the NG and thought I'd get a wider answer here:

I didn't own the original Carriers at War so I was very excited about
getting this game but I wonder if those who did own the original could
comment here because I feel this game is missing something - maybe
something left out of the original?

After reading 10 pages of rules and learning how to launch an air
strike/move my ships - nothing else - I earned a Decisive US Victory
at Wake Island. Here's what I did:

1. Waited for my green auto launched search planes to find an enemy. I
did nothing to alter this.

2. Once an enemy was spotted I clicked a red strike management button.
I clicked all the planes available to my carrier in question. I
clicked launch. I did this for all my carriers when sightings were
made.

3. I waited for my white strike force planes to reach the enemy.

4. I watched whilst they went in. I watched whilst the enemy hit me.

5. I lost the Big E to black colored damage and 4 other ships. The AI
lost the Soryu to orange colored fire and some hits to the Hiryu (and
it was pretty frustrating as my planes couldn't hit a ship the size of
Japan most of the time).

6. My supply ship reached Wake and I sent it back to Midway after.

7. I never heard from the AI again.

It appears that there's less to do in this game than HPS's Defending
the Reich! At least there I can plan stuff.

I mean did the player ever get to position his ships in a Task Force?
Did the player ever get to manage his strikes' access and egress or
coordination? What the heck does "arm and refuel" mean in terms of
player interaction with his forces other than click it?

Where's the game - the plotting, the strategy? If I play more will I
find it? [&:]





Jam_USMC -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 4:42:12 PM)

I am right with you on all those points. I seem to be searching for something. Detail, depth, interaction? I'm not sure. I just assumed if it was released by Matrix that I would spend hours just learning how to play and days perfecting my play, but as it seem so far the game is just shy of a click-fest. I hope I am wrong and will probably spend my entire weekend trying to prove it.

Jam



Adam Parker -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 4:52:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jam_USMC

... but as it seem so far the game is just shy of a click-fest.

Jam


Yes! That's exactly what I'm feeling and I really hate saying it as I was building expectations for this game up.

I mean a player:

1. Can't assign sectors for planes to search - he can only click compass directions.

2. Can't assign formations to his task forces - destroyer screens, AAA concentrations, CAP positioning etc - these are all preset and seem to have no bearing on play.

3. Can't finesse his strikes other than take off time and to go "cohesive" whatever that means.

The whole Strike Screen and Surface Contact screen are pointless - leave them out. Sure in the later you can click a group of ships up and down and say shoot at this but you can't position these ships at all. In the Strike Screen a player can do nothing!

This is why I'm wondering if in this new engine, something by way of gameplay was left out?



JudgeDredd -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 5:06:33 PM)

Well I have to say the simplicity of this is a breath of fresh air.

I see what you are both saying, but I don't know what the originals are like. But I like the fact I can pick this up and play.

It is lite, but I like it like that.

My one criticism would be the lack of scenarios...and funnily enough that was my same gripe with the decisive battles games. But as far as picking up and running with it, it makes a change to have a game this "simple"



Toby42 -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 5:29:52 PM)

I was about ready to jump, but now you guy's have me thinking. Maybe I'll re-read the AAR's before I decide.

I had all of the original's and I'm a little put-off by the lack of scenario's. BattleFront re-visited!!!



JoeRockhead -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 5:45:38 PM)

Yes, this game is not Over the Reich or Battle of Britan, nor any of the HPS air games.
Where you can plan all operations down to the last detail.
Not all of us want every game to be a Grognards dream.
I owned the originals, and this is very much like it. It is challenging AI that always keeps
you on your toes. It is not a micromanagers dream. Most who owned the originals enjoyed it for what it was and what it offered. It is a challenging game that is not to overly complicated to play that gives a general feeling of carrier operations in the Pacific in WW2. If they convert the old scenarios there will a good number of battle options.
With the mod community I expect good things in the future as well.



Adam Parker -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 6:21:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeRockhead

Yes, this game is not Over the Reich or Battle of Britan, nor any of the HPS air games.
Where you can plan all operations down to the last detail.


I don't want that. I hate that.

But I would like a bit of tactics and strategy - even along the lines of Hasbro's Battleship! Here you don't even get to yell out "B4?"

All they needed was to take something simple like AH's Bismark or Midway and make a PC game out of it. This "game" should be in planning the search, the bluff, the application of scarce air resources.... it isn't.

I'll keep trying for a little longer to find a game here.



tedhealy -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 6:33:52 PM)

Try the Coral Sea, if you don't have fun on that scenario with things to do, then this game isn't for you. Plenty of hide and seek.



CTB123 -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 7:11:33 PM)

Remember, you are playing the Admiral on the bridge, not the operations officer in Carriers at War.  This release is very authentic to the original game.

There is a lot to consider.  What direction do you search?  The more directions you search, the less aircraft available for other tasks.  How many carriers do I search with?  Do I launch at that sighting?  The Fog of War is very real.  Those reported carriers may turn out to be transports.  Do you launch now, or wait until you get more Intel?  Do you launch now at maximum range with a reduced ordnance load and no fighters, or do you wait and close the range?  Do I launch a coordinated/cohesive strike, or do I get my planes there as fast as they can get there?  How many fighters do you keep on CAP?  Do you put up a heavy CAP at dawn and risk having them all coming back to fuel when the enemy strike really hits?  Do you risk a late day strike if that means recovering aircraft after dark?  Do you keep aircraft armed and ready so they will be ready to strike quicker with the risk of having fueled and armed aircraft on deck when an enemy strike hits?  Do I believe my pilots when they say they sank 3 enemy carriers, or did they miss or even misidentify them?





Hertston -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 7:34:41 PM)

I agree with CTB123; I find comments that there is no 'game' here puzzling in the extreme. There is plenty to do and significant decisions to make that don't entail the sort of micro-management that would completely spoil the flow of the game.

Sure, you can play by waiting for a sighting, moving into range, clicking a couple of buttons to launch everything you have, rinse and repeat and even win big that way. You can also lose big, too. I'm sure most people's first game or two was played just like that. But whether you do is in the luck of your pilots, the gods or the random number generator. The big trick is avoiding the throw-a-dice slug-fest, and it can be done with one or two correct decisions and a little luck.

As Judge said it's a fun game you can just pick up and play, it's not one to devote your life to in WitP fashion. It reminds a lot of Defcon in that respect.

A couple of points. Firstly, I think the 'decisive' victory conditions are rather too generous. Secondly, I'm a little concerned that the random elements involved in strikes may be a little too random. I've run the Historic Pearl Harbour scenario a few times to test this and on occasion the pilots can show staggering ineptness considering the nature of the target. My prize performance was two strikes on Pearl with every plane (including fighters with bombs) at my disposal, small losses and a grand total of two ships sunk - and one of those was a cruiser sitting next to undamaged battleships. From what I could gather the rest of the fleet didn't exactly suffer crippling damage, either. Shome mishtook surley?




Erik Rutins -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 8:49:53 PM)

I'm also a bit puzzled by Adam's feedback, in that I've played various scenarios through several times and found plenty of different strategies and choices to keep me busy. There's no lack of game here, but each scenario does play out fairly quickly, rather than being a week-long or month-long endeavour. Adam, which scenarios have you played so far?



TheHellPatrol -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 9:40:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well I have to say the simplicity of this is a breath of fresh air.

I see what you are both saying, but I don't know what the originals are like. But I like the fact I can pick this up and play.

It is lite, but I like it like that.

[8D]My thoughts exactly, i love Witp and never had a problem with the micromanagement...back then, but now my kids are older and my Dad needs care as well as life's little suprises. This is what i was looking for, gone are the days of nine, thirteen hour days in a row playing Witp until my eyes were bleeding and seeing TF #'s above my families heads[:D].
I am in awe of CAW, it has just what i have needed: ease of play, not too overwhelming (ie Grand Campaign), gorgeous graphics (yes, they are important), an interface that is utter perfection WITH tooltips!, a sneaky ai that doesn't do the same thing twice, and last but not least...a blend (albeit lite) of grand strategy with an awesome mix of tactical combat which is a graphical symphony of naval/air warfare in a beautiful backdrop where the player can easily put themself on the battlefield with huge naval guns blasting and planes buzzing overhead like hornets...great drama IMHO.
I like games with lots of menu's and interaction but i LOVE games like CAW or Cross Of Iron that are thrilling to play and look at that i KNOW i can finish when i sit down[;)].



Unhappy -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 9:46:24 PM)

I can see from the posts that most people are enjoying CAW.  I decided to play some more today in the hopes that my initial impression would change but unfortunately I don't find this game very engaging.  I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't grab and hold my interest.  In particular, tense moments seem to be absent or few and far between.  Plus, I'm disappointed that (aside from the editor I guess) I am unable to vary my initial set-up by forming TGs the way I'd like - nor can I transfer ships between groups once the scenario starts.  If you play the Midway scenario (as the Americans) you know that if you spot a group of 12 ships - whatever the sighting report says they are - then there is a 50% chance that it is the Japanese carrier strike force because it is ALWAYS in a group of 12 ships and there is only one other group of 12 Japanese ships.  I'm sure if you play a few times you can identify with a fair degree of accuracy what the enemy groups are just based on the ship count because the initial set-up never varies.

Also, as someone else mentioned, the effects of air-to-air combat are difficult to judge - I know that there are boxes that report the results and different icons that appear on your bombers during an attack - but a separate 'screen' to represent air to air combat would be useful.  Surface combat is not very gratifying; you either have the superior force and will try to close and engage or you have the inferior force and will attempt to withdraw - no manouvering - no fun.  Plus, as some folks predicted before the game was released your carriers really are at the mercy of surface combatants once they've launched a long range strike.  I had not played CAW in its prior incarnation so was inclined to agree with the folks who said that 'on station' carrier groups would not pose a problem during game play but they do.  I've encountered this repeatedly already.  There are other things...

I'm sorry my opinion of this game is so negative and, apparently, contrary to most of the satisfied customers.  I was not looking for another Witp, but this game just isn't much fun.    



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 9:59:49 PM)

There are some small items, details that could improve the game, IMO.

For instance, it'd be cool if the developer would introduce some assymetry into the carrier operations based on the respective doctrine and capabilities of the U.S. and Japanese forces circa 1941-42. As an example, FORCE the IJN commander to use the "coordinated strike" feature so long as he has at least two carriers in his TG, and penalize the USN player (somehow) if he uses it. Likewise, when IJN carriers are operating by division (which they always should be), have one carrier supply an airstrike with its Kate squadron and the other its Val squadron, as was done throughout 1942. As for TG composition, ALL of the IJN's fast, big-deck carriers ought to be included in a single, Kido Butai-style formation, whereas, the U.S. probably ought to be limited to two hulls per group. These are just a few possibilities, ones that wouldn't require any big re-write of the code, but would give the game more character.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



freeboy -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 10:06:54 PM)

Judge, are you aware that the folks at r5 community have made dozens of FREE add on scenarios? the decisive battle games .. are like buying a set of legos.. toy blocks to build with.. this game, much the same.. great engine as we have come to expect from SSG.. just my .5 cents worth[X(]



Hertston -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 10:12:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Unhappy

I can see from the posts that most people are enjoying CAW.  I decided to play some more today in the hopes that my initial impression would change but unfortunately I don't find this game very engaging. 

I'm sorry my opinion of this game is so negative and, apparently, contrary to most of the satisfied customers.  I was not looking for another Witp, but this game just isn't much fun.    


Nothing to apologise for. It's just the way it is with computer games in general, some grab you and some don't. I have a couple of boxes full of games that I thought I would like, past form suggested I should like, and were no more buggy or 'broken' than is usual - and that I hardly ever played. That includes a couple of Matrix releases. You just know know until you try them.



CommC -> RE: What am I missing? (6/9/2007 11:49:35 PM)

I would be willing to concede Adam's point if he tells me he wins Midway or Coral Sea as the US several times in a row. Until then, I would say there is plenty of game here. For me, CAW is "more beautiful than I ever imagined". [:D]



Duck Doc -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 2:40:44 AM)

While I haven't yet played CAW yet (I will be getting it soon) I must say I don't think you are missing anything. This phenomenon is very typical of Real Time games where you can't get your grognard wrench into the engine to tinker with it & set the circumstances in a detailed way. It also should not surprise, dismay or disappoint anybody who plays. I don't know exactly why & I suppose somebody with a knowledge of game theory & probability/ statistics could supply a good answer.

Part of the problem may be the particular scenario & the way the victory conditions are set up. Every game has a set of strengths & weaknesses. Sometimes a particular scenario will fall victim to the weaknesses in the game & the outcome may suffer as a result. Additionally not all scenarios are equal & one particular side may play differently in a given scenario. The game designers & playtesters do the best they can to provide a set of scenarios that work & are fun to play but, alas, they are human & not perfect even considering SSG designs some of the best, if not the best, wargame products available.

However I would & do view this game as more of a simulator than a game. At least that is how it is advertised when you select the game on this site to view. Thinking of it this way it should be fun to play out various strategies & see how they work. Sometimes, Grasshopper, the journey is more important than the destination [;)].





quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

I posted this on the NG and thought I'd get a wider answer here...

I didn't own the original Carriers at War so I was very excited about
getting this game but I wonder if those who did own the original could
comment here because I feel this game is missing something...

Where's the game - the plotting, the strategy? If I play more will I
find it? [&:]







Adam Parker -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 2:58:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CommC

I would be willing to concede Adam's point if he tells me he wins Midway or Coral Sea as the US several times in a row. Until then, I would say there is plenty of game here. For me, CAW is "more beautiful than I ever imagined". [:D]


It's a new day Downunder and that's what he's plans to do today [:)]

One other thing to be said about this game that hit me at 2am last night:

70 pages of rulebook = just 30 pages of rules with large font = the easiset ever rulebook I've read for a wargame = either implies it's an easy game to learn/difficult to master or = there isn't much of a game to talk about.

Unhappy's comments above seem to reflect my fear but let's see for myself...



alexs -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 3:43:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CTB123
[snip]

There is a lot to consider. What direction do you search? The more directions you search, the less aircraft available for other tasks. How many carriers do I search with? Do I launch at that sighting? The Fog of War is very real. Those reported carriers may turn out to be transports. Do you launch now, or wait until you get more Intel? Do you launch [snip]


These are exactly the questions im asking my self when im playing.

Adam: Have you tried playing Coral Sea? Particularly the job as the allies, with inferior planes and pilots at the time make it a hard job. You'll need to stick to the weather patterns, hope your searchplanes manage to find (and correctly identify) the main Japanese carrier force, and that you're able to get a strike off before the enemy does. You'll also need a certain amount of luck that your undertrained pilots attack the correct targets in the enemy taskgroup.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 3:51:46 AM)

Adam,

You're missing the fun, excitement and almost unbearable tension of a great game. Try playing Midway or Coral Sea as the US and see how easy it is to win. We put Wake Island into the game so we could use it for the tutorials and because its a simple scenario. Now that you know the gameplay, try something more challenging.

Above all, I would say think like an Admiral. You complain that in the Strike Screen you can do nothing. Well, that's because guys like Fletcher and Nimitz didn't jump into dive bombers and personally plant bombs on enemy flight decks.

Nor did they, mid battle, change TG doctrine about formation, CAP and the like.

When you start a CAW scenario, you are effectively in the middle of a battle, it's just that the actual firing hasn't started yet. You need to make tough decisions with the forces that you have and live with the uncertainty that results.

You seem to take the loss of the Enterprise somewhat casually, I hate it when the bad guys sink any of my ships, let alone a carrier and sometimes I can barely bring myself to look at the strike screen when a full strike of enemy planes is heading my way.

Personally, I think any game that makes you yell things at the computer screen has a lot going for it, and that's just what Carriers at War does for me, even though I've played the game countless times.

The very first release of Carriers at War sold over 100,000 copies and that for a game with graphics and interface that are stone age by today's standards. It's been hugely popular ever since, so I'm not just giving my own, somewhat biased, opinion but that of huge numbers of satisfied customers.

Gregor



CJMello63 -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 3:54:25 AM)

I just played Wake twice as Allies. First time (Alternate) I get a decisive victory but it seems more so because the Japanese do not try to take wake and not so much for my command presence.

Second play (historical)turns out like previous games as they take Wake with time to spare.

Adam you playing historical or alternate?

[image]http://home.comcast.net/~cjmello63/caw.jpg[/image]




Adam Parker -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 4:38:23 AM)

Historical mate. Gonna post an AAR of Pearl now.

IMO if you damage the Jap carriers they give up the scen and call off the invasion.

The only time I saw the Japs win Wake ie: invade, was when I hadn't read the rulebook and didn't know how to launch a strike [;)]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 7:19:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

There are some small items, details that could improve the game, IMO.

For instance, it'd be cool if the developer would introduce some assymetry into the carrier operations based on the respective doctrine and capabilities of the U.S. and Japanese forces circa 1941-42. As an example, FORCE the IJN commander to use the "coordinated strike" feature so long as he has at least two carriers in his TG, and penalize the USN player (somehow) if he uses it. Likewise, when IJN carriers are operating by division (which they always should be), have one carrier supply an airstrike with its Kate squadron and the other its Val squadron, as was done throughout 1942. As for TG composition, ALL of the IJN's fast, big-deck carriers ought to be included in a single, Kido Butai-style formation, whereas, the U.S. probably ought to be limited to two hulls per group. These are just a few possibilities, ones that wouldn't require any big re-write of the code, but would give the game more character.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)


Just wanted to suggest another "easy" one.

It'd be very, very simple to make the Dauntless a CAP/fighter in the game as they were so employed at Coral Sea and before. The aircraft's forward-firing, fifty-caliber machine-guns were more than adequate to KO a Val or Kate, and bagged a Zero or two along the way, as well.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Llyranor -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 8:01:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CTB123

Remember, you are playing the Admiral on the bridge, not the operations officer in Carriers at War. This release is very authentic to the original game.

There is a lot to consider. What direction do you search? The more directions you search, the less aircraft available for other tasks. How many carriers do I search with? Do I launch at that sighting? The Fog of War is very real. Those reported carriers may turn out to be transports. Do you launch now, or wait until you get more Intel? Do you launch now at maximum range with a reduced ordnance load and no fighters, or do you wait and close the range? Do I launch a coordinated/cohesive strike, or do I get my planes there as fast as they can get there? How many fighters do you keep on CAP? Do you put up a heavy CAP at dawn and risk having them all coming back to fuel when the enemy strike really hits? Do you risk a late day strike if that means recovering aircraft after dark? Do you keep aircraft armed and ready so they will be ready to strike quicker with the risk of having fueled and armed aircraft on deck when an enemy strike hits? Do I believe my pilots when they say they sank 3 enemy carriers, or did they miss or even misidentify them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
Above all, I would say think like an Admiral. You complain that in the Strike Screen you can do nothing. Well, that's because guys like Fletcher and Nimitz didn't jump into dive bombers and personally plant bombs on enemy flight decks.

Nor did they, mid battle, change TG doctrine about formation, CAP and the like.

When you start a CAW scenario, you are effectively in the middle of a battle, it's just that the actual firing hasn't started yet. You need to make tough decisions with the forces that you have and live with the uncertainty that results.

You seem to take the loss of the Enterprise somewhat casually, I hate it when the bad guys sink any of my ships, let alone a carrier and sometimes I can barely bring myself to look at the strike screen when a full strike of enemy planes is heading my way.


This is what I wanted to hear. I just needed a bit of prompting, but I'm jumping over the fence now. Purchased and downloading.



Jam_USMC -> RE: What am I missing? (6/10/2007 7:47:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jam_USMC

I am right with you on all those points. I seem to be searching for something. Detail, depth, interaction? I'm not sure. I just assumed if it was released by Matrix that I would spend hours just learning how to play and days perfecting my play, but as it seem so far the game is just shy of a click-fest. I hope I am wrong and will probably spend my entire weekend trying to prove it.

Jam


UNCLE! UNCLE!

I retract my previous post. This game really is pretty good. Could be better. There is more potential. But the detail and depth is not readily apparent as I might have expected. It lies more within the development of strategy and necessity of changing it based on changing circumstances. And unlike so many other games there can be an almost palpable element of suspense even when nothing is going on. The fun is in the hunt. Really love the music too.

Finally, many thanks to the forum and those who post here. Had I not read all the folks defending this thing I might have given up. But I didn't and now I have another fun game to enjoy. Glad I proved myself wrong.

Jam



e_barkmann -> RE: What am I missing? (6/11/2007 2:29:42 AM)

quote:

palpable


heh, that's the word I used in my CAW multiplayer testing reports.

But it's true, you can feel it.

cheers Chris



Reg -> RE: What am I missing? (6/11/2007 6:40:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Unhappy

If you play the Midway scenario (as the Americans) you know that if you spot a group of 12 ships - whatever the sighting report says they are - then there is a 50% chance that it is the Japanese carrier strike force because it is ALWAYS in a group of 12 ships and there is only one other group of 12 Japanese ships.  I'm sure if you play a few times you can identify with a fair degree of accuracy what the enemy groups are just based on the ship count because the initial set-up never varies.


Hands up everyone who can name all the Carriers present at Midway. You are now in possession of information they would have killed for at the time and would have greatly affected how they conducted the encounter.

This is the conundrum of all games of this genre and scale. You can vary things with the supplied editor but is it Midway anymore??? [&:]

There were only a finite number of carrier encounters (particularly even matches) during the war and they don't make them any more...... The editor certainly adds variability and challenge to the game but I have found that fighting endless battles between random lists of participants soon loses the immersion of playing in a historical period and you might as well be playing a fantasy game like Warcraft. (Nothing against the game or genre but I am a historical wargame player....) [:D]

Games with campaign aspects like WITP avoid the problem by setting up battles based on player decisions which adds ownership to the encounter.

I am really looking forward to see what the modders come up with as their creativity always astounds me.

I have played the original CAW many times and I think I seeing comments from new owners based on the fact that CAW appears too easy to play. CAW is based on the premise that you are the commander and you have a staff to handle all the minor details and leave the overall strategy to you.

If you CHOOSE to take a hands off approach, you can let your staff conduct most of the battle for you. Your staff have been programmed to be reasonably competent and as fortune plays a major part in these type of operations, you can score a decisive victory if fortune smiles your way and you happen to catch the enemy in a compromising position.

I think the challenge comes in being able to do this consistantly. What do you do when you realise you are spotted and there is no sign of the enemy flat tops on your plotting chart?? In real life, the lives of thousands of men (and your career) ride on the results of this one encounter. Would you leave it to dumb luck?? [:-]

On the whole I think it was a great and enjoyable game and the remake appears to be a worth successor.

Just a few thoughts,



Adam Parker -> RE: What am I missing? (6/11/2007 11:13:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Adam,

You're missing the fun, excitement and almost unbearable tension of a great game.


I think I'm finding it Gregor. I think I'm almost there. I just sank two Jap carriers at Coral Sea and knowing it can be done gives me a sense that the game is sound and challenging.

I'm going to do some study this week and visit Hylands to see what they have within budget. Did I read you've got the full "History of the UNO in WW2"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Personally, I think any game that makes you yell things at the computer screen has a lot going for it, and that's just what Carriers at War does for me, even though I've played the game countless times.


Yep I'm beginning to do that too. It's all a matter of confidence in the soundness and logic of the engine for me.

I'm experiencing a few crashes now so may sit back a little and study the rules until you guys can work up a fix.

But to a guy who has never played the Original CAW, it takes some time to understand exactly what the player's role is and how much decision making he actually has to feel like he makes a difference. I'm beginning to believe that element exists.

For guys who have played CAW from the 90's I'm sure they will fit right in and give you some healthy sales. The interface is smooth, some very nice innnovations in terms of convenience. You get full marks there. You should give John Tiller a call and see if you guys can partner to integrate your 2d top down art into his Naval Campaigns games. Very nice graphic work.

Cheers,
Adam.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375