Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (Full Version)

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



Message

Oleg Mastruko -> Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:19:06 AM)

More I play more I realise the laughable scenario design that went into this game. Apparently only Chris of all testers ever tried some serious multiplayer, because that's - in MP - when ridicolous stuff becomes apparent.

Some examples:

- Eastern Solomons map is very confined to the south - USN has nowehere to retreat (do I have to say they would have solid opportunity to retreat to Australia and Noumea IRL?)

- Santa Cruz - well, same map, same thing. I've had MP opponents "corner" my forces into what is in reality just an open ocean!

- Wake Island - I just had a massive LOL. Whoever designed this needs to have his head examined. Me IJN, opponent USN. I sunk all 3 his CVs + tons of other ships. However, his kamikaze CVs badly mauled my invasion force before dying for the emper.... pardon, Roosevelt. For this doctrinally insane, tactically crazy, and strategically catastophic result he was awarded - Decisive USN Vicotry. I scored a decisive defeat, because I lost couple transports carrying, perhaps, a Naval INF batallion or something? He did not even sunk them all, so make that half an INF batallion. He lost 3 CVs + thousands of sailors and pilots - need I explain that in real life such result would be debacle for the US, and IJN would take Wake at their leasure with no opposition form USN in sight in whichever way they please?

You people need to playtest your stuff vs real living opponents. AI just does not cut it. Otherwise you have ridicolous stuff happening in MP, and MP scene will be dying very soon. I started with what I thought are 6 playable MP scenarios, and I'm down ro, what? 2, already?

[:-]



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:30:59 AM)

The absolutes are key here, in MP anyway. In the above the American Fleets stayed separated, the first strike on the northern group came in unsighted [8D] < not cool, blind!) and ent or sara (i forget)was quickly sunk.

My center task force and the southern force only had the two invasion fleets sighted and launched, sinking enough to lock the win. I attempted to sail south with the center fleet but was still caught and sunk. The sara was left alone due south of WAKE (edit, it really is hard to get away as the yanks), lauched once more sank a few more invasion ships. Then sunk attempting to flee.

Not really kamikazee, but certainly open for divide and conquor...but I've grouped em just to see all die together before...



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:44:17 AM)

I am not questioning your strategy, which is apparently valid given the absurd scenario design here. Apparently I should have read the scenario victory requirements before (which I didn't) and have a good hearty laugh before we ever played, and refuse to play such travesty at all.

I must admit I rarely read wargame scen briefings in full, because I assume some knowledge of history and common sense should be enough to tell me what to do. A guy once said: TRUE wargamer worth his history books does not need victory points, one glance on the game map and he *knows* who won.

No one with half a brain would award decisive victory to the side losing 3 CVs vs none of the enemy, in a game called "Carriers at War". (Not to mention valuable pilots and aircraft, and cruisers you lost + you lost your own transport force) It was an utter debacle for the USN for everyone except scenario designer.



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:51:03 AM)


I'd have to agree with the loss of the three CV's here. The victory screen just didn't seem right when it popped up at the end...




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:00:00 AM)

I don't care for one lost game - which I would never admit anyway, as I consider this result to be my Uber-Decisive Overwhelming Victory, no matter what you, Gregor_SSG, George W. Bush or Pope Benedict the Billionth have to say [8D]

What irritates me to no end is that developers (not just SSG but practically all developers) ignore wargamers who play vs other humans. Once you start playing and/or testing games vs other people terrible mistakes become apparent - either technical (unplayable or buggy MP as in so many games), absurd and downright ridicolous scenario design, never-tested setups etc etc etc. Sadly, this game is no better than the rest, even though I had hopes...... [:(] That's three scenarios already tagged as "unplayable in current state" by me, Pearl Harbor is well, it's not a REAL scenario, so we are left with grand total of TWO scenarios that may be usable for MP (as in - didn't find any logic-breakers there yet).

And hey, we MP fanatics usually never complain about the damn AI - that Nemesis of all developers everywhere....



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:13:39 AM)


Some 'what ifs' scenarios would be the easiest solution to more variety/balance.

If there's anybody thinking of creating one for MP, I'd suggest 2 distinct objective locations to keep players guessing at the start. If I had half a clue I'd attempt one myself, but that could be dangerous.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 8:19:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You people need to playtest your stuff


Can I quote you on that?

PoE



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 9:14:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AVisme
Some 'what ifs' scenarios would be the easiest solution to more variety/balance.

If there's anybody thinking of creating one for MP, I'd suggest 2 distinct objective locations to keep players guessing at the start. If I had half a clue I'd attempt one myself, but that could be dangerous.



Okay, you guys aren't getting the whole scenario thang.

SSG has superimposed a game over an historical situation. The result is sort of a mess because both sides know what's out there. If you round up the usual suspects that conventional wisdom seems willing to attribute the outcomes to, Allied intel, luck, etc., you're pretty much screwed, because of the calculus of the battles themselves, the central and immutable characteristic being that the IJN enjoys an overwhelming edge by virtue of the superior range of its aircraft. It can sock the living hell out of an Allied TG and the assailed can't effectively respond. In MP, no amount of smart-alec maneuver will alter this reality to a significant degree.

IMO, however, there is a flaw to the SSG approach to the modeling of these actions. It lies in the developer's stern-willed insistence that the USN and IJN fought these battles the same way. The fact of the matter is, though, that this was not the case. And at every point in the game, I keep thinking to myself, "if only these doctrinal differences would emerge, we'd see different outcomes and MP would be set free of the straight-jacket imposed upon it by the terrain and situation, the scenario." As is, the game is reduced to a series of x's and o's, weapons systems and crew, and no heed is paid to how they went about doing their jobs.

I could reel off a bunch of "rules" that'd attempt to impose some doctrinal differences upon the forces at hand, but I've done so in other threads, hereabouts, and I'm semi-convinced that the management isn't interested.

So it goes,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)







Charles Lamb -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 12:58:38 PM)

I have to say that I got a similar impression to Oleg and AVisme from multiplayer games with them.

The scenarios are setup and balanced for single player, that much is obviouse.

In most of the scenarios discussed, IJN has many more carriers and longer range (historic) and the US does not have the advantage of surprise.

The IJN perhaps should HAVE to launch air strikes against land targets in some scenarios as a requirement of Victory, this is a suggestion , there may be other better ways of rebalancing for multiplayer but currently the IJN 'hold all the aces'.

Both sides should be able to withdraw from the map edge in all scenarios definitely.

Probably there should be seperate multi player versions of many scenarios.

In such a new release I hope the developers may consider doing this ?






Dave Ferguson -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 1:36:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
.....What irritates me to no end is that developers (not just SSG but practically all developers) ignore wargamers who play vs other humans. .....


I don't have this game but it is on my winter 'to play' list so I thought I could not agree more with the above statement. You wonder if game developers would rather forget about having human v human play, after all only a small percentage of gamers play v human, they have the most fun but the ignorant majority don't know this. My question is does CAW have the scenario and map design tools so users can generate their own scenarios, or do we have another computer wargame which is not really a wargame you can play WITH a computer?

Dave



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 4:38:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

You wonder if game developers would rather forget about having human v human play, after all only a small percentage of gamers play v human, they have the most fun but the ignorant majority don't know this.


Very insightful, Dave. Decades ago, I came across some survey results suggesting that the average wargamer spent more time playing solo than against an opponent. I took that to mean that folks were "practicing" or "planning moves" in preparation for play against a human. I think that I was probably wrong in that regard.

For whatever reason, a lot of players had simply eschewed the human option and begun rolling the dice for both sides. No doubt, computer games that offered an AI was a God-send of sorts to these individuals. And while they couldn't roll dice for both sides, at least they could use the save-game function to replay the turn until they got the result that they were looking for.

Anyway, you're right. I think that many developers approach MP as an afterthought. But, it's also true that many publishers simply demand that it be included. It's a "must-have," so it goes in, regardless of it's playability and/or balance. I definitely lean toward human opponents, btw. But, I also like to have a good game to share with my opponent, one with solid "rules" and a modicum of play-balance, if you will, and no bugs allowed.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:08:49 PM)


in defense here, I just fooled around with the editor and victory conditions and this is really easy to fix. teach a man to fish they say.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:13:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AVisme


in defense here, I just fooled around with the editor and victory conditions and this is really easy to fix. teach a man to fish they say.


Tell us more. [:)]

PoE



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:44:03 PM)


lots of combinations possible, easily allow the Japanese to withdraw with dignity and or punish the invasion fleet more.

[image]local://upfiles/24671/0C420F9A818A4EB883B814FF483EF564.jpg[/image]



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:46:33 PM)


Change the points for sinking certain ships can easily be done aswell

[image]local://upfiles/24671/318CE2A91C4140D3BBDF4CE6CC7D37E3.jpg[/image]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 5:55:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You people need to playtest your stuff


Can I quote you on that?



Absolutely, mate, but please quote the FULL sentence:

You people need to playtest your stuff vs real living opponents.



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:00:03 PM)

an interesting twist can be added!

I lowered the sighting range by 100nm for each side's 3+ groups [X(] and reduced jap torps to 'good'

[image]local://upfiles/24671/931F294F0C474213BFDDA243787A6AE8.jpg[/image]

being able to mod turn around times would be great (need to add to wishlist maybe)



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:07:28 PM)

and after editing it didn't crash [&:][&:] idiot proof maybe [;)]



[image]local://upfiles/24671/22BD773A4C364383A4570B453C187C78.jpg[/image]



sullafelix -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:10:05 PM)

One reason I never went to MP and I 've read alot of other peoples comments on why the stopped. Was the way that in most MP you or your opponent can twist the rules. Instead of following reality the wargame is changed into a chess game and how the rules can be bent to gain victory points. I've read about last turn drives to earn victory points with a supply wagon etc.

CAW and all other wargames put you into the seat of the commander, at whatever level the designer wanted. I haven't had time to play with the editor but from the old CAWs you could do Anything you wanted. Different plane types for what if's, adjust AA on ships, adjust the experience of aircrews. 

Take the Phillipine sea for example. If you play it stock 99 times out of 100 as the Japanese you are doomed. But, that was the historic situation. If you MP people will be a little patient there will be tons of new historical and what if scenarios. The amount that was released in Run5 was huge and then there were the ones made by others.

Back to the reality question. I do not want to play a " historic" game where Frederick does not follow linear tactics or the Japanese can produce an A bomb in 1938. I do want to have the ability to see what would happen in the pacific with Japan training more pilots and the possibility of Shindens. I have the ability when playing solo to make sure that idiotic situations don't start happening. The more complex a wargame is ie. supply and command radius the more historic will be the outcome. If you want to in a more complex game to land paratroopers in Paris and land at Calais you are welcomed to it.But you will also pay a stiff price for such actions. A beer and pretzels game will let you do those things. CAW is not that kind of game. In fact withe efforts like CAW I dislike the term game and prefer simulation.




82nd Airborne -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I don't care for one lost game - which I would never admit anyway, as I consider this result to be my Uber-Decisive Overwhelming Victory, no matter what you, Gregor_SSG, George W. Bush or Pope Benedict the Billionth have to say [8D]




heh, I played Coral Sea last night, sunk all 3 IJN carriers, plus several CA's, DDs, transports, only losing the Lex, and a very minor damage on 2 CAs. The IJN did a drop on Tulagi, and I came away with a draw. Thought for sure that would be a Decisive Victory.[sm=crazy.gif]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:15:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles Lamb
The IJN perhaps should HAVE to launch air strikes against land targets in some scenarios as a requirement of Victory, this is a suggestion , there may be other better ways of rebalancing for multiplayer but currently the IJN 'hold all the aces'.


Exactly - IJN has the upper hand in all scenarios because a) they know USN forces in advance; b) not only that, they also know WHERE USN forces start the scenario because there is NO variability in starting points; c) they don't have to bomb land installations - because in this game it's simply totally useless anyway. On some maps USN is also unable to retreat because maps are extremely confined - if the IJN player is willing to use (exploit) this to his advantage.

IJN has the advantage except in this most ridicolous scenario of them all - ie. Wake island, where the USN can easily win if they are ready to "Do The Yamato" and sacrifice all their CVs (+ aircraft + air crews) to strike down the AK Sh1tty Maru and AK Cr4ppy Maru - those two ober-important vessels. [8|]

Go figure [>:]

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:16:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You people need to playtest your stuff vs real living opponents.



It'd appear as though MP was a big part of whatever playtesting took place. Surely, you must realize that programmers don't normally play the games that they code, day-in and day-out. Somebodies must have been running MP for him to stabiity test it. I suspect, however, that it (stability testing) was the overarching focus of the effort. Similarly, it doesn't appear as though a whole lot of time was spent on regression testing of the game's core functions, some of which have been in gestation for twenty years.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:39:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design. The game does have it's strengths. The subject matter is quite compelling and the command scale is plausible enough. And SSG has managed to get a bunch of fairly complex interactions running in real-time, no mean achievement.

My real concern is an attitude that I've detected, "we sold a qazillion of these things, twenty-years ago, so don't go telling us how to do our job." Well, I don't think that myself or anyone else is seriously trying to do that. The game belongs to SSG. I do, however, wish that the developer would be a little more open-minded about introducing further design innovation into Carriers at War 2007.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 6:47:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design.


PoE I like your posts, as you seem to be "chatty" type of person which is nice [:D]

However you add very little substance to the thread - please be more flamey, say that the scenario design is fine for you so I can spill more bitterness in return [:D]

Seriously though, I doubt very much that this game can be changed into something longer lasting or usable for MP. For one I've seen no will from the part of the developers to do what has to be done (notice no dev replies in this thread).

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).

Oh well.... worse things have happened. Like, Pearl Harbor or Midway [:D]



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:04:50 PM)

quote:


That strikes me as overly harsh.


I'd have to agree Oleg. I can appretiate your observations but have to state that in spite of the shortcommings I've still enjoyed my MP expierence sofar. I tend to try and look beyond the ludicrous results generated and try and focus on the immersion of the duel and at times the randomness of the spotting (and strikes) have had me in goosbumps :)

After a little exploring I've discovered it'll only take some minor tweaking to do away with some of the more outlandish conditions. Go a little deeper with the editor and you can modify the 42's to play less objective orientated and more focused on the future consequences of action.

And I would hope the 'flee the field' option would be an easy add for the first patch along with LRCAP [sm=00000506.gif]




Toby42 -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:10:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design.


PoE I like your posts, as you seem to be "chatty" type of person which is nice [:D]

However you add very little substance to the thread - please be more flamey, say that the scenario design is fine for you so I can spill more bitterness in return [:D]

Seriously though, I doubt very much that this game can be changed into something longer lasting or usable for MP. For one I've seen no will from the part of the developers to do what has to be done (notice no dev replies in this thread).

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).

Oh well.... worse things happened. Like, Pearl Harbor or Midway [:D]


Nothing like telling someone that their kid is "UGLY". [:-]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:12:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).



Yeah, play-balance is a necessity with multi-player. And you're not gonna get any sort of balance because the game's apparent strength in this regard is it's undoing. The game is about weapon systems, one element of which is pilots.

When you throw the affect of Allied intelligence out the window, and, likewise, fail to take into account differences in doctrine, it all comes down to a/c specs and pilot quality.

Playing the IJN, it's all about standing off and slaughtering an enemy that's too far away to strike back effectively. As the Allied player, you'll likely be reduced to hijinks like going after invasion transports to eke out a victory.

In conclusion, while hypothetical or modified scenarios could be employed to provide sufficient balance to this game, the historical scenarios are largely unsuitable for multiplayer because of the very nature of Carriers at War as published.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:43:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I don't care for one lost game - which I would never admit anyway, as I consider this result to be my Uber-Decisive Overwhelming Victory, no matter what you, Gregor_SSG, George W. Bush or Pope Benedict the Billionth have to say [8D]

What irritates me to no end is that developers (not just SSG but practically all developers) ignore wargamers who play vs other humans. Once you start playing and/or testing games vs other people terrible mistakes become apparent - either technical (unplayable or buggy MP as in so many games), absurd and downright ridicolous scenario design, never-tested setups etc etc etc. Sadly, this game is no better than the rest, even though I had hopes...... [:(] That's three scenarios already tagged as "unplayable in current state" by me, Pearl Harbor is well, it's not a REAL scenario, so we are left with grand total of TWO scenarios that may be usable for MP (as in - didn't find any logic-breakers there yet).

And hey, we MP fanatics usually never complain about the damn AI - that Nemesis of all developers everywhere....

There may be a way to take some of the sting out of this, Oleg.

Several years ago, I co-sponsored a single-elimination MP tournament with a developer. The scenarios were hypos created by the game's random scenario generator. But, there was a problem with the generator in that it tended to dish out battles that were wildly unbalanced. Because of this, the tournament results were clearly gonna be tilted in the direction of the player who drew the advantaged side.

The solution was simple enough. Two games were played per match with players alternating sides, and the winner was the player whose combined score for the two games was greatest . The winner advanced and the loser headed to the showers. We had thirty-plus participants and they really seemed to enjoy it (the developer and publisher threw in some nice prices, books and stuff). I see no reason why a similar format couldn't be adopted for CaW multi-player.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



AVisme -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:44:33 PM)



quote:

Nothing like telling someone that their kid is "UGLY".



I feel bad, its like I pulled back the blanket... [;)]



Charles Lamb -> RE: Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least) (6/23/2007 7:49:58 PM)

This is a very positive discussion on the whole and some concensus seems to be emerging,

It is already possible to tweak the scenarios a little as AVism seems to be doing (I look forward to trying out some of your changes),
(although the ideal would be to arrive at some official and well tried Multi-player scenario's included with the game.)

Thoughts and Request:-
i) looking in the editor it would be VERY useful to be able to assign some destroy airfield/port conditionals (require a certain amount of damage to be inflicted to an airbase/s or port to achieve ?). At the moment there are currently only two conditionals available, supply/invade and preserve ship.
(Central to Midway, Wake, Guadalcanal and the Eastern Soloman's and New Guinea operations was the need/goal of putting airstrips out of action and currently the game does not recreate that except through the AI mission cards which are not applicable to multiplayer.)

This would be a way to make carrier commanders have to consider sending strikes against airbases to achieve victory...and it would also provide more purpose/choice for the land based bombers of both sides.

ii) The ability to retreat from the game map (or reworking much bigger maps for multiplayer).

iii) Variable starting positions would help replay value of multiplayer tremendously.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625