Impressions - do you agree? (Full Version)

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



Message

apoll -> Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 1:36:25 PM)

Hi. Thought I'd post my impressions of this game....see if you agree. Firstly, it is really good to see a game about carriers in WW2 being published; there are simply not enough of them for this fascinating subject. So I for one, rushed to buy this thing when it came out...almost out of principle - but mainly because I am interested in the subject and remember the first SSG carriers game with which I had hours of fun.

First thing to say is I like the interface...clean and easy to use...I think I saw the adjective 'polished' used to describe it somewhere and I'd agree with this. What about gameplay? Well....its ok...and the AI seems robust enough to give me a run for my money most of the time - altyhough I defeated the Japenese at Wake pretty easily I have to say...surprisingly so - given the rep of this AI I had been reading around the place. Beginner's luck? Maybe - although Coral Sea also seemed a bit easy to find and sink the first US carrier. Hmmm.

You know...despite the very good things about this game, I can't help thinking if it is all a bit too.....simple? Too easy to launch strikes. Too easy to find the enemy. Too easy to sink the enemy when you find them - acknowledging the innacuracies of some reports (this is well done and relicates reality...the 'fog of war'). A couple of button clicks, and wham...a full strike is on its way. I would've liked to to have been able to dictate the numbers of bombers on each strike..held some back....armed them with different weapons...fuelled them...spotted them....recovered them. I would've liked involvement in the plotting of the strike...in the formation of the fleet...the granularity of search patterns and the types of aircraft doing the searching. In short, I want to be 'more involved' in the game. This creates more suspension of disbelief and buy in from the player...hence, more enjoyment. Well...to me it does. While still engaging, it seems all one has to do is sail to spot, search, find enemy, launch strike...hope for best. That's it. Seems a bit abstract to me...and hence, not soo enjoyable as I remember the original one to be (that may be a fualt of my memory...not reality!)

Also..I wonder about the replay value of this game. Once you've played a side...well it seems to me that's really it. All the mystery and doubt seems answered...you know from where the enemy will come...you know how many carriers etc. With so few scenarios, I wonder why a campaign type arrangement was not implemented here? Much more fun that a series of disjointed, abstract and isolated scanerios.

What do people think? Am I too harsh? Off the mark? Got a point?

Grateful views,

apoll [:)]



Adam Parker -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 1:46:38 PM)

Apoll, you sound just like I did.

Agree on replay value and I believe that is being looked into and I just posted in another thread about the desire to be more involved in planning.

Also look for a thread of mine called something like "What am I missing?" and you'll see where I was a week ago with this baby in being a mirror of you. Now, I'm still to play Solomons and Phillipines and relishing the thought.

With Wake I got a decisive US victory on my first real play. And 2nd, 3rd... Means nothing now. I didn't own the first CaW and it took me a while to understand why the game has been designed as is.

Flow through with your recommendations - but play a bit more first. That was the advice I took and I'm glad I did. Expect Pearl to play pretty much as a tutorial too btw.

Adam.



apoll -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 2:50:23 PM)

Adam...thanks for your thoughts. This is useful...and good to know I'm not totally off the mark. How good would it be if we had all the options I was talking about....I like the detail and really getting involved in decison making at all levels. But I'll certainly take your advice and play more...see how I go.

apoll

(BTW..in Canberra) [:)]



Toby42 -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 3:42:41 PM)

Apoll,

You are trying to make the game something that's it not intended to be. Alot of us don't want to be arming each and every plane and telling it what to do. You are looking for more of a first person shooter type of game. I like to leave all of the detail to the computer to hash out.



Icedawg -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 4:17:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

Apoll,

You are trying to make the game something that's it not intended to be. Alot of us don't want to be arming each and every plane and telling it what to do. You are looking for more of a first person shooter type of game. I like to leave all of the detail to the computer to hash out.


No, I don't think he is looking for a first person shooter type of game. If anything, he seems to be looking for the exact opposite - something that makes you actually think and plan. I know that's what I was hoping for. IRL, commanders had to account for variables such as pilot fatigue and morale, refueling/rearming times, altitude assignments for strike elements and CAP, etc. This game models none of those, grossly oversimplifying the role of the TF commander (which appears to be the role the player is to assume in this game).

The first person shooter mentality is exactly what this game seems to appeal to - no thinking involved, jump right in with no planning, click, shoot, bang - instant gratification!

I know I am greatly disappointed because I thought that this game would provide a little bit of suspense - watching the time click by as crucial events unfold.

Something like this - Forty five minutes ago, an enemy search plane circled overhead; 5 minutes ago, most of my fighters just returned from a mission escorting a strike which failed to locate the enemy carriers. I have very few fighters aloft (I chose to have most of them escort my strike as I believed I had not been detected). Can my mechanics below decks get the returning fighters refueled in time to get them launched so that they can help defend against the looming enemy strike that my gut tells me is coming?

This game provides none of this! It is effectivey along the lines of a first person shooter game - just make a single click and "wham, bam, thank-you mam" some complex task is done - instantly.



captskillet -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 4:18:05 PM)

Sounds like he needs an old copy of Carrier Strike by SSI.



Toby42 -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 4:21:50 PM)

Carrier Strike was a pretty cool game. It had a little more detail to it. I think that you had to turn into the wind to launch and you could pick out your type of weapons to arm with.



rastak -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 7:01:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Sounds like he needs an old copy of Carrier Strike by SSI.




Yup, that would fit the bill.....that was a GREAT game.



NefariousKoel -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 8:17:42 PM)

It sounds to me like he wants this game to be UV/WitP. 

If you want to micromanage all the details, get Uncommon Valor or War in the Pacific apoll.  They let you do just that.  While they are good games, they take an extremely long time to play.  I like the short and quick action in CaW, it's refreshing compared to the very slow-going other two.



jazman -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 10:00:29 PM)

Actually, UV/WitP lets you micromanage everything _but_ the details we're talking about here. OK, you can set altitude levels and mission types. But you can't even launch a strike there, the computer decides for you.



jhdeerslayer -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 10:14:10 PM)

Certainly everybody will have some opinion on this. I like it the way it is myself. It meets what was advertised.



Hartford688 -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/20/2007 11:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Sounds like he needs an old copy of Carrier Strike by SSI.


As was posted in another thread by someone else, looks like 2by3 will be issuing a new Carrier Strike sometime:

http://www.2by3games.com/devjournal/journal20060713.html

Have a look at page 7. Looks interesting. Given this journal was from a year ago, hopefully quite a bit of progress will have been made.

Looking forward to it. I must say I enjoy CAW - the lack of fiddling with details. I find WITP a leetle on the excessive micromanagement side (for all its many merits), so I hope they find a happy middle ground for this title.



chadandpia -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 1:33:36 AM)

Uncommon Valour Deluxe edition????!!!! Detailed carrier combat! my all time favorite wargame getting even better! omg! omg! OMG!!!! [:D]



Hertston -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 1:56:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartford688
Have a look at page 7. Looks interesting. Given this journal was from a year ago, hopefully quite a bit of progress will have been made.


Reading their blogs just depresses me. We have several 'Pacific' games and two new-ish excellent ACW strategic games, so 2by3 are working on an ACW strategic game and (last I heard) two more 'Pacific' games. Go figure. STOP FANNYING ABOUT AND FINISH THE EAST FRONT GAME, GUYS! [:-]



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 5:00:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: apoll

Hi. Thought I'd post my impressions of this game....see if you agree. Firstly, it is really good to see a game about carriers in WW2 being published; there are simply not enough of them for this fascinating subject. So I for one, rushed to buy this thing when it came out...almost out of principle - but mainly because I am interested in the subject and remember the first SSG carriers game with which I had hours of fun.

First thing to say is I like the interface...clean and easy to use...I think I saw the adjective 'polished' used to describe it somewhere and I'd agree with this. What about gameplay? Well....its ok...and the AI seems robust enough to give me a run for my money most of the time - altyhough I defeated the Japenese at Wake pretty easily I have to say...surprisingly so - given the rep of this AI I had been reading around the place. Beginner's luck? Maybe - although Coral Sea also seemed a bit easy to find and sink the first US carrier. Hmmm.

You know...despite the very good things about this game, I can't help thinking if it is all a bit too.....simple? Too easy to launch strikes. Too easy to find the enemy. Too easy to sink the enemy when you find them - acknowledging the innacuracies of some reports (this is well done and relicates reality...the 'fog of war'). A couple of button clicks, and wham...a full strike is on its way. I would've liked to to have been able to dictate the numbers of bombers on each strike..held some back....armed them with different weapons...fuelled them...spotted them....recovered them. I would've liked involvement in the plotting of the strike...in the formation of the fleet...the granularity of search patterns and the types of aircraft doing the searching. In short, I want to be 'more involved' in the game. This creates more suspension of disbelief and buy in from the player...hence, more enjoyment. Well...to me it does. While still engaging, it seems all one has to do is sail to spot, search, find enemy, launch strike...hope for best. That's it. Seems a bit abstract to me...and hence, not soo enjoyable as I remember the original one to be (that may be a fualt of my memory...not reality!)

Also..I wonder about the replay value of this game. Once you've played a side...well it seems to me that's really it. All the mystery and doubt seems answered...you know from where the enemy will come...you know how many carriers etc. With so few scenarios, I wonder why a campaign type arrangement was not implemented here? Much more fun that a series of disjointed, abstract and isolated scanerios.

What do people think? Am I too harsh? Off the mark? Got a point?

Grateful views,

apoll [:)]


If you had hours of fun with the first SSG carrier game then you should like this game as they are at their core the same game, with the same level of detail.

I would ask, why you feel the need to make some the detailed decisions that you ask for. Armament, for instance - wouldn't you just end up making the dive bombers carry the biggest bomb they could and the torpedo bombers carry a torp if they could and bombs if they couldn't. That's what the computer does, so why make the player invest time and effort to get the same result?

Similarly, with not sending a whole squadron on a strike. Even if you have only one carrier, there's usually two squadrons of dive bombers that can be sent to different targets if you need to, and if you have more than one carrier then you have even more flexibility. So why put extra complexity in, if it will be rarely or never used?

As for the mechanical details of arming fueling planes, this again sounds like something you might like control over, but you probably don't. The real fun and decision making is where to send what, not pumping gas into the planes. You should probably also count the number of US carriers in the Philippine Sea scenario before you wish for manual control over this procedure. That's an awful lot of unexciting mouse-clicking that you'd be letting yourself in for.

I would say, keep playing, especially the larger scenarios, and concentrate on the vital decisions that are at the heart of Carriers at War. As you'll see from the other posts on the forum, a lot of people are finding it an intensely exciting game.

Gregor



JD Walter -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 5:01:44 AM)

Hi apoll,

Carriers at War really comes into its own in face-to-face (hotseat) play. It has just the right amount of detail to give you something to plan (a strategy) and do (launch/recover strikes), while taking just the right amount of time at the keyboard (~3 minutes) to do it while a friend's waiting.

Also, I find we can play 2-3 games in an afternoon - perfect while the SO is out shopping! [:'(]

The game is deceptively easy to get into because of the finely-honed interface; if you've studied architecture or are a student of Frank Lloyd Wright, you will see many of the same philosophies governing Roger & Ian's approach here.

However, it has a surprisingly deep play value. Even apparently straightforward scenarios like Wake Island become challenging cat-and-mouse exercises when played against a live opponent who's also familiar with the scenario. Coral Sea will have you biting your nails from the pressure to sight and launch first - especially if your opponent is a master of using the clouds!

All in all, a game that I've certainly come to appreciate the more and more I play it.



Hartford688 -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 8:54:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartford688
Have a look at page 7. Looks interesting. Given this journal was from a year ago, hopefully quite a bit of progress will have been made.


Reading their blogs just depresses me. We have several 'Pacific' games and two new-ish excellent ACW strategic games, so 2by3 are working on an ACW strategic game and (last I heard) two more 'Pacific' games. Go figure. STOP FANNYING ABOUT AND FINISH THE EAST FRONT GAME, GUYS! [:-]


[:D]

I certainly agree (but I can always do with an extra carrier game!) and have been anxiously awaiting the East Front game as well. I just worry that when it does come it will require me to manage each platoon, and specify what will be in their sandwich boxes each day.



apoll -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 1:26:51 PM)

Hi. Firstly...I want to thank everyone for their comments...great to conduct such a discussion without rancour or immaturity...as I have seen in some other forums when someone posts their thoughts. Pls take my comments in the spirit in which they are offered...as a thoughtful observation on what is already a pretty good game. And I will be the first to acknowledge that it is real easy to criticise...and I guess I am guilty of that a little.

But I do care about this game and its genre...and I felt the need to share my...frustrations I guess you'd call them...if only to air them and provoke thought, not least among the creators of this game.

Speaking of creators...Gregor..thanks for taking the time to comment on my thoughts. I do take your points and you can be sure I will continue to play this game...and you are probably right...it will grow on me. I do see the logic in the decisions your group has made - and you have achieved well within the bounds of these assumptions and design boundaries IMHO. No way do I begrudge the money I spent!

You asked why I felt the need to get involved in more detail...when all the critical decisions are still left up to me. Well....my sense is that it IS important, at least for me, to have control over those smaller things, albeit however meaningless they seem. At the risk of telling you how to suck eggs...the longevity of this type of a game IMHO is measured in the degree to which it is able to generate a kind of 'attachment'...or 'involvement' from the player...who then becomes more vitally interested in the decisions made and the gameplay - if only because more from him/her has been invested in finally getting that strike away (for example). And this generates more fun. I will simply feel it more if it has taken me a long while, with many small decisions along the way, to get a strike airborne - and it finally suceeds! If it is too easy to strike...or move...or search...then I don't have the same level of attachment...and then gameplay risks becoming....... superficial. I reality, it cannot have been an easy thing to coordinate such a thing...and I guess I do like reality in my games as much as possible. Of course, we can go to the other extreem and produce a click fest that become tedious. There is a fine balance to be achieved...and the art I guess is in getting that balance right. I would have liked to see the balance weighted a bit more to the detail for the reason I gave above.

But that's me. Sure as eggs if you do this, you'd have someone making the counter comment that there is too much detail! Can't win, hey Gregor!

Ok...that's me done. I'll continue to play...and I do like the idea of multiplay over the internet (if I can every figure out how to do this...)...someone made the point that that is where a game like this would really come into its own. Yes...good point...I hand't really thought of that.

Cheers,

Apoll [:)]




Adam Parker -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 2:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: apoll

Too easy to launch strikes... A couple of button clicks, and wham...a full strike is on its way. I would've liked to to have been able to dictate the numbers of bombers on each strike..held some back....armed them with different weapons...fuelled them...spotted them....recovered them. I would've liked involvement in the plotting of the strike...in the formation of the fleet...the granularity of search patterns and the types of aircraft doing the searching.



G'day apoll - there are quite a few Aussies playing this Aussie game downloaded from "Bushworld" [:)]

You do bring up a very good point here that recently dawned on me. Early on when questioning the design and suggesting things like you have, I was told that the player's role in the game is Fleet Commander, hence further command input such as fleet composition, strike planning, search planning etc didn't fit the job title.

But does clicking "refuel/rearm"? Does launching strikes and clicking a search compass rose? Really, if I was the Commander, my ships' captains would decide to do all these things.

What then would a Commander do?

1. Set TF course and speed.
2. Set TG mission - landing, support, strike.
3. Set search "strategy".
4. Set ready alert launch status.
5. Possibly set TG air mission - anti-land/anti-ship.

IOW - the computer should be readying aircraft for us, the computer should be launching aircraft for us, the computer should be managing its own cap vs strike asset allocation and the computer should be launching its own searches based on the strategy we define.

But in fact, the player is being asked to do all these things. Therefore, what you suggest above, is not out of current context.

However, I think that given the large map scale, refinements should be made to expand the stategic/grand tactical aspects of the game rather than micromanagement:

1. Have forces start further apart.
2. Let the player assign TG behaviours that the computer will decide to execute given docrtine/training of the sides - eg: aggressive, passive, cautious.
3. Let the player assign search "sector" priorities - overlay a search grid on the map.
4. Let the player assign trigger happiness - launch on sight, await confirmation, launch all, launch conservatively etc.

By doing these things the game then becomes more of a search & think game than a react & twitch. We pray in both [;)]

That's what I would prefer if changes were made - in addition to added scenarios/randomness.

Cheers,
Adam.



GoodGuy -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 4:18:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

However, I think that given the large map scale, refinements should be made to expand the stategic/grand tactical aspects of the game rather than micromanagement.....[]

I see where you're coming from... I wouldn't call it micromanagement here, but "flexibility" and this would enhance fun + immersion while giving the player a few more tools/possibilities at hand so that tasks can be executed successfully or with more variety.

Example: Allow to detach subunits (i.e. destroyers, CAs or even BBs). In 1944, the BB Iowa was ordered to serve as "firebrigrade" 1 or 2 times, although it was initially supporting ground forces at the shores of Lyte Gulf, in order to protect "baby"-carriers that got attacked by IJN groups far north. The japs withdrew their forces before Iowa could reach the area, but, with the US fielding a superior number of ships, it seems that detaching units became common practice in 1944.

The missing bombardment option minimizes immersion too.



Venator -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/21/2007 7:57:21 PM)

The game is growing on me. Yesterday I felt pretty dissatisfied overall.

My first and biggest beef still stands - no allowance for wind. At Samar for instance, Kurita sought to stay north of Spague's fleeing carriers to prevent them turning into the wind and launching. I think it's something that this scale of game should pay at least token attention to this. Sprague could not flee due south as he would not have been able to launch so chose to run east as a compromise. Because of this he was brought under fire from the Japanese battleships and he had to sacrifice his destroyers to cover his retreat. The game abstracts this too much. Sprague's decisions (as a carrier group commander) and Kurita's are exactly the sort of decisions the players should be making. Yet they are lost because the game abstracts a bit too much...

I'd also say carrier aircraft operations (re-arming/refuelling) are all way too fast and attacking airfields seems to be rather a waste of time

That apart, I'm growing to like the gameplay and Wake Island and Eastern Solomons have proved the most interesting to play as the US. At Midway it seems a bit too easy to identify the Jap carriers.

It's now my opinion that this is a decent game but also that there's a really good one struggling to get out. I suspect wind can't be 'fixed' but I hope the other two issues I have mentioned will be addressed fairly swiftly.

quote:

 1. Have forces start further apart.
2. Let the player assign TG behaviours that the computer will decide to execute given docrtine/training of the sides - eg: aggressive, passive, cautious.
3. Let the player assign search "sector" priorities - overlay a search grid on the map.
4. Let the player assign trigger happiness - launch on sight, await confirmation, launch all, launch conservatively etc.


I rather like all these ideas.



Adam Parker -> RE: Impressions - do you agree? (6/22/2007 3:23:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Example: Allow to detach subunits (i.e. destroyers, CAs or even BBs).


Wow wouldn't that add to fog of war! I'm all for this. Could the AI handle it?

I know that a fine trick of the AI is to smother its carrier TG's with surface TG's to act as steel shields in milking the routine that air strikes can potentially be diverted by a closer target in LOS.

Many times the US player has limited options in this regard due to the limited number of TG's assigned. Yes, I would consider this flexibility in asset assignment within the realm of the virtual Fleet Commander.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125