MarkShot's CAW/CCAW tips and lots of historic discussion! (Full Version)

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



Message


MarkShot -> MarkShot's CAW/CCAW tips and lots of historic discussion! (7/4/2007 10:01:41 PM)

***** Tips started on 07/04/07; last updated on 07/23/07 *****

Since this forum does not have a tips or strategy guide thread, I am building one now.

As a community of players can we formulate in this thread a collection of strategy/gameplay tips and techniques? For the purpose of helping each other and new customers who come along.

Let me tell you honestly what is behind this request. I think I am getting burned out on the game/system after about 2-3 weeks. Granted I have been playing CCAW as opposed to CAW, but I don't see much difference between the games at a conceptual level. In fact, I think SSG has done a superb job or recreating the original game to run under Microsoft Windows. In only one or two areas, does the original game provide greater information content than the new release.

I am a person who like to look deeply into my strategy games. I write guides, as many of you know, and I am always very happy to read guides. I like games with rich multi-layered collections of fundamental techniques for the player to master and apply.

And yet, I have reached a point of burn out with this game after 2-3 weeks of play. Why?

At this point, it seems to me that a large element as to whether I have see victory or defeat is determined by random chance. Clearly, the first sighting report and the first strike (especially when not countered) is tremendous determinant in the outcome.

After few weeks, I have only found a few basic strategies to apply. Probably there are more, but I am just not seeing them. Maybe others are more perceptive or better at this than me. Here is what I have more or less:

*(1) Use weather fronts. Keep your TGs in the weather such that they may approach the enemy undetected and get that first strike. Bad weather will make your TGs harder to find and when the enemy strikes, they will be less likely to do damage.

(2) If you are the USA (with the shorter reach), then keep your distance from the Japanese so that they cannot strike. At night, close as fast as possible. This, at least, at dawn will give you an even chance doing as much damage as they will to you.

(3) Use other TG's based on where you think the enemy will be putting them in between your carriers and the enemy. Where possible, you can use the command orders for this. So, these TGs soak up air strikes from the enemy.

(4) Use your carrier forces to fix the enemy's carrier forces, since once he launches, his TG has to remain on station. Now, while fixed close a surface combat force at flank to take the enemy out in surface combat.

(5) Use base transfers to pull your front line aircraft out of harms way from large land base airstrikes. Use their aircraft as part of a coordinated plan with your carriers. Although level bombers may do little damage, one can only hope that their attacks are disruptive thus providing your carrier wings with better opportunities to score hits.

*(6) Attempt to mass your carrier forces and catch the enemy's carrier forces isolated. This is the standard mass, win by the numbers, and defeat the enemy in detail strategy. This approach more than anything else seems to be devastatingly effective.

(7) Use your land bases as safe operational zones for your carriers, since the AI is programmed to avoid land based threat areas. You can attempt hit and run attacks from these areas. Like race to close for a late day strike, and then run back to safety over night.

(8) The carriers seem highly vulnerable despite their CAPs. Striking as soon as part of your air wing is within range is probably better than closing for a larger strike. Remember it only takes a few hits to shut down the a flight deck.

(9) If you still want to use a TG for surface combat, then consider scuttling damaged ships as they prevent the TG from moving at flank speed and closing.

(10) Let the scenario objectives dictate in part how you interpert vague contact reports. If any invasion is called for, then it is more likely an enemy invasion force of transports which hugs the coast and enemy carrier force which projects itself out into deep water.

(11) A more advanced approach to massing your carrier forces is to try to bring them within striking range of one enemy TG, but dispersed enough that an enemy strike cannot hit all of them at once. Effectively, you mass your striking capability, but not your actual forces.

(12) When the enemy vastly outnumbers you, then do not meet his carriers head on. Instead look at the scenario objectives and see if it is possible to block the enemy from achieving his critical objectives. For example, if the enemy needs to invade in order to secure a victory, then avoid his carriers, but prevent his invasion by taking out the more vulnerable invasion force.

(13) Remember that when you have anything in the air beyond CAP or search planes, then your TG is station keeping. Consider what this means. For example, you may end up having a front pass you by and exposing you to clear weather. Or the enemy may use the time you are station keeping to run down carriers with a surface group.

(14) Strike AC fly a direct path to the target. Thus, in the absence of a contact report an inbound/outbound air strike will give you a LOB (line of bearing) on the enemy carrier force. One might combine this small bit of knowledge along with AC ranges in order to create a "search and strike" artificial siting report. Thus, launching a counter-strike without a corresponding contact report. For those who play modern sub combat games like (SC/DW), this is analogous to firing a snapshot down the bearing of an inbound TIW.

(15) #14 the above technique may be especially useful when dealing with land bases, since they are more likely to be struck at first light than a CV force, since the enemy does not need a sighting report to hit a land base. So, an inbound air strike at dawn on a land base before search aircraft have produced a good picture is quite likely.

(16) It seems that during an air base strike, your recon and bomber AC are quite vulnerable to damage. Perhaps simply getting them airborn at first light when an airstrike is expected might be a good means of force preservation. So, "search and strike" artificial siting report may serve as a means to get non-fighter AC out of harms way when an airstrike is imminent.

(17) If you are play CCAW (not CAW), the main display will give you a hint when the other side gets a sighting report (contact) as you see indicator light up for the enemy side. Of course, you won't know what he has just spotted, unless you also get an alert of search planes. In any case, it may be a good time to launch an emergency CAP for any CVs you which think are at risk.

(18) Since you will be station keeping when you have launched a strike, it is important to know which way weather fronts will be moving, since your disposition towards them will be passive (meaning that you can no longer chase them). If you have positioned yourself properly, weather fronts will continue to pass over your force while on station and hide you from the enemy. In CCAW, the games appears to update weather on the hour. So, this is when you should watch.

(19) In a multi-day scenario, it may benefit you (especially if you are the defender and the underdog) to not rush into the battle area. Instead first make sure that you have positioned your forces relative to the weather and that you have a good understanding what the weather is doing in different sectors of the map. (I believe the scenario editor provides for 9 quadrants of weather behavior across the map.) Having done this, remember that the presence of mission objectives having locations make the enemy predictable, and may, in fact, force him to expose himself to clear skies. In the meantime, you can use hit and run tactics peripheral to the main battle area. Although it is nice to sink the enemy's carriers, if you can continue to maul him without being hit back, then you can certainly run up the score in your favor. A strategy based soley on catching the enemy's carriers can be very risk prone. Landing forces and capital ships without air cover can be torn up pretty good for not too much cost in aircraft or pilots.

(20) The power in having a very extensive CAP airborn when the enemy arrives is not so much in terms of shooting them down or causing damage. It would seem the big gain is that it spoils their aim. This is pretty apparent is you get if get to compare airstrikes not facing air cover and those that are. There won't be so many shoot downs, but a much small percentage of strikes on target will occur. Effectively, having no CAP over your CVs could may get them sunk, but will certainly put them out of operation. On the other hand, having a full CAP may be enough to keep your CVs in the fight despite meeting a major strike of a 100 raiders.

(21) Despite station keeping, remember that you should still have a little time to sprint even after ordering a strike, since it will take time for the planes to be armed and launched.

(22) Although no one wants to throw away points, consider scuttling damaged ships that are slowing down a TG under the following conditions. The slower TG will not be able to remain in a weather front to protect it from enemy planes. The slower TG will be more likely to be the victim of a surface battle group.

---

Now, I have placed an * next to two most significant pieces of strategy. As I said, I find myself getting burned out. I am looking for and hoping for something deeper and more sophisticated, but after three weeks I mainly have luck (see asterisks) and two very basic concepts which determine scenario play. Please someone help me and tell me what I am failing to see.

Thank you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I've only played C@W a few weeks, but here are a few tips I've picked-up:

- whenever possible, let the enemy come to you while you are in a wx front.

- sacrifice a small surafce TG as bait by letting the AI target fixate on it, then hit his CVs. I discovered this quite by accident as the Allies in the advanced warning variant of the Pearl Harbor scenario.

- If a strategy worked for you in UV, it will probably work in C@W; same war, same map, same ships.




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/4/2007 10:18:16 PM)

I forgot to add something. Please, no scenario spoilers. This is not about beating the scenarios and "levels", it is about a general set of fundamental game play techniques to play a better and more predictable game against the AI or against humans in MP.

Thanks again.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/4/2007 11:37:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I forgot to add something. Please, no scenario spoilers. This is not about beating the scenarios and "levels", it is about a general set of fundamental game play techniques to play a better and more predictable game against the AI or against humans in MP.


Unfortunatelly, in this game this is so very closely connected. There is no "general CAW strategy" that would be unconnected to beating any particular scenario. Otherwise everything can be simplified as "find the enemy, launch first and win".

However, once you get into strategies for particular scenario(s), you see how flawed, simple, meagre, un-replayable and easily winnable (vs AI) current CAW scenarios are. (Just my opinion, as always.)




82nd Airborne -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 12:37:23 AM)

I'd add that you shouldn't forget about the 'artificial sighting' feature. Tough to use, but can be the gamebreaker if you hit it right. You can get planes dropping bombs on your enemy just as the sun rises if you hit it right. There is no real 'strategy' to employing it other than remembering to consider it if you feel you know where an enemy TG is heading or about to appear.




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 12:53:25 AM)

Well, I am still playing and exploring.

From past experience, I have had many games that felt empty of finesse to me or I was otherwise clueless about that ultimately became some of my all time favorites. Sometimes, they revealed their secrets through many hours of careful gameplay and observation. Othertimes, I was luck enough to find fine materials and guides produced by others. So, I am not yet close to writing this game off as fancy UI on top of a lot of die rolling.

Also, I refuse to accept that the only strategies available are direct reactions to scenario scripting. There has to be more to good game play than gaming the scenario. I, also, hope that there is more to it than following the clouds around.

Well, hopefully, someone will come along illuminate me as to what I am missing. By the way, I am playing decently, but I prefer my wins to be based on plans and proper action/reaction. So, winning alone is not enough for me to enjoy myself.

---

CCAW also has the artificial sighting marker. But unlike CAW, you can only create one of those at a time.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 1:15:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Also, I refuse to accept that the only strategies available are direct reactions to scenario scripting. There has to be more to good game play than gaming the scenario. I, also, hope that there is more to it than following the clouds around.

Well, hopefully, someone will come along illuminate me as to what I am missing. By the way, I am playing decently, but I prefer my wins to be based on plans and proper action/reaction. So, winning alone is not enough for me to enjoy myself.


Not "only" but certainly the best.

What you - and many others - are missing, is true MP experience. Once you try that you'll know how limited, easily read and tame the AI is. Next step => you'll realise that every strategy you devised based on play vs AI was weak and basically contrived to benefit from AI weakness, not the greatness of the strategy itself.

Of course there are always some universal truths & time proven strategies: drink a glass of milk every day, keep carriers fueled, don't run with scissors.... [:D]




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 1:22:50 AM)

Oleg,

I see why you need a porn queen as your Avatar, it masks your otherwise cranky disposition! :) Aren't there any games you come across which make you happy?

Of course, you know that I am simply teasing you, since we are friends. I respect your ruthless determination to tear the meat off of any game's bones that dares to make unsubstantiated claims and such. :)




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 1:32:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I see why you need a porn queen as your Avatar, it masks your otherwise cranky disposition! :) Aren't there any games you come across which make you happy?


LOL porn queen?!? She's an artist.... or something..... I guess....

There are some games that make me happy, no need to list them here. In fact CAW made me very happy, but for such an incredibly short time.... until I got some MP games under my belt and realised that what fun was there to be had with this game, was "used up" in less than a week. There's nothing really deep to discuss, I am afraid, once you try MP, win some, lose some, and realise that REAL strategies (ie the ones to use vs human) are very very limited, as is the number of scenarios. Not terribly bad result, but I did expect more.....




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 5:26:00 AM)

Bump - you mean to tell me that all of you have been playing CAW against the AI and not anyone has a single insight into how to play beyond what is already written here? What a dissappointment! Or are you all guarding your secrets for when MP picks up? :)




Johnus -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 5:56:24 AM)

MarkShot:

Why must the enemy stay on station after launch ?? Once you launch, does the game automatically keep you on station until you recover ??




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:31:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Johnnie
Why must the enemy stay on station after launch ?? Once you launch, does the game automatically keep you on station until you recover ??


Yes that's how it works.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:39:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Bump - you mean to tell me that all of you have been playing CAW against the AI and not anyone has a single insight into how to play beyond what is already written here? What a dissappointment! Or are you all guarding your secrets for when MP picks up? :)


Well since you ask.... [;)] I happen to disagree with your advice #5.

quote:

(5) Use base transfers to pull your front line aircraft out of harms way from large land base airstrikes. Use their aircraft as part of a coordinated plan with your carriers. Although level bombers may do little damage, one can only hope that their attacks are disruptive thus providing your carrier wings with better opportunities to score hits.


In fact any strikes vs a landbase produce negligible damage or no damage at all. There is absolutely no reason to pull frontline aircraft back to protect them.

In fact, my advice would be the exact opposite. Move all your light bombers to frontline bases (especially Henderson field in scenarios where the said base is operational) and use the for mass strikes against enemy. I think the limit of air units any base can sustain is 10 (or is it 8?). So my advice would be to move any available dive and light bombers first (because of their short range they are useless if left too far behind), then fighter bombers etc. until the unit limit is reached.

I may think of more advice to post later, but most of my suggestions are actually scenario-related, because, in turn, each scenario is very "mission dependant" so to say.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:47:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
(3) Use other TG's based on where you think the enemy will be putting them in between your carriers and the enemy. Where possible, you can use the command orders for this. So, these TGs soak up air strikes from the enemy.


This is a nasty, gamey, and unhistoric stragtegy that actually - works. It's ugly to use vs poor old honest chap the AI, but it's even uglier vs human.

In one of my MP games opponent placed some USN supply group with half a dozen tankers deliberately in between my CVs and his. I saw his CVs and ordered my strkes to go *specifically* after the CV group, but overzealous airmen attacked the first TF they saw - the tankers - every bloody time. What seemed like bazillion of my strikes went after those tankers, which in turn were able to withstand hundereds of bombs and torpedos. Only when the last tanker was sunk strikes went after carriers 3-4 hexes away...... [X(]





Adam Parker -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:48:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Let me tell you honestly what is behind this request. I think I am getting burned out on the game/system after about 2-3 weeks.

I am a person who like to look deeply into my strategy games... And yet, I have reached a point of burn out with this game after 2-3 weeks of play. Why?


Likely because this game has a scale that is a bit out of whack:

1. It wants you to lead an armada but tells you to rearm and refuel your planes.

2. It wants you to launch strikes but offers no realism in timing between launches and recovery.

3. It wants you to chose tactics but offers no way to arrange TF's, TG's or the execution of strikes.

4. It wants you to experience the tension of the air search but lets you click a rosette covering all directions of the known universe, speed up time and tha, tha, that's all folks.

5. It has a few things broken that are being fixed like CAP, air-ground, strikes stuck in form up.

6. It offers only few scenarios, 33% of them tutorial level.


But all that said, it is a simple, beer and pretzels game, with all its out of whack abstractions, that doesn't take a chunk of one's life to play and for that, doesn't need analysis [;)]

Does it give a feel of the carrier war? Can results be similar to history? Yes, yes.

IMO the hunt could just be better, the replayablity increased through randomness/more scenarios and the roleplay less contradictary.

That's my .02 here.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:52:21 AM)

Here's another piece of advice from me.

Don't bother to send coordinated strikes from landbases, if the target is surface or transport group. They get no benefit from coordination since there is no CAP over target (game does not support LR CAP ie long range CAP) Just any strike will do, and sometimes un-coordinating a strike will allow you to send many more aircraft.




Adam Parker -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:53:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

(3) Use other TG's based on where you think the enemy will be putting them in between your carriers and the enemy. Where possible, you can use the command orders for this. So, these TGs soak up air strikes from the enemy.

This is a nasty, gamey, and unhistoric stragtegy that actually - works. It's ugly to use vs poor old honest chap the AI, but it's even uglier vs human.


Yep, I wondered if it had some historical basis because the AI does it all too well.

What about flying in and out of storms? Did squadrons ever do this? Did they ever find their carriers on their return journeys?

Once again, SSG is a master at abstraction but their games seem to pull it off with historical outcomes.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 6:59:03 AM)

And another one - I never did this but a guy used it against me in MP game, it was quite funny actually.

Zeros are by far the longest ranged CV aircraft in a game, longer ranged than Vals or Kates. Even though Vals and Kates have range advantage over most USN CV aircraft, if you, playing as IJN, want to be EVEN MORE sure that US can't retailate, keep the range between CV TFs very open, and attack with Zeros armed as fighter bombers - you can do this while being so far away as to be almost completely safe from a retaliatory strike.

However, this didn't really work too well in my game, because when I realised what's going on I had max CAP up - expect to lose quite a few Zeros, to get couple hits, or less.

Counter-advice for US player - if you see (or "sense" [;)]) Zero fighter bomber strike incoming as described above, get the max CAP up and run away.




Oleg Mastruko -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 7:00:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Once again, SSG is a master at abstraction but their games seem to pull it off with historical outcomes.


Perhaps vs AI, not so if played vs human. Using heavy units like BBs to "cover" the CVs by sailing 50 miles in front of CVs may be historical, but using tankers for the same purpose is definitely not.




Adam Parker -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 7:06:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko...

but using tankers for the same purpose is definitely not.


Yeah totally agree. This should be severely penalised. It's like using trucks in TOAW or Panzer Leader as scouts!

And here's a related thing - my ships never run out of fuel - in most scens the first thing I do is put them at max power or if a scen has 5 days to go I set speed at 5 days. Not brain surgery!

At least give the auxiliaries a mission relevant to the scenario or give TG's a need to have them there.




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 7:28:01 AM)

I ran out of fuel in playing Coral Sea (USA) CCAW and was forced to run at 5kts. After that, I got more careful.

So, your point is that the deep strategy that sometimes drives me to write 100 pages doesn't exist here in this game. It's like playing DefCon, but with aircraft carriers. :(

That's kind of a shame. I am not so much a history/grog type, but I like rich and layered systems. Usually a game carefully modeled on the real word yields a rich and layered system, because that is how the world functions in reality.

Oleg and Adam, I think perhaps you may be right. Then, I the only thing left to ask myself if it is a basically a simple game, is it still fun and worth the time?




Adam Parker -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/5/2007 7:59:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

So, your point is that the deep strategy that sometimes drives me to write 100 pages doesn't exist here in this game. It's like playing DefCon, but with aircraft carriers. :(


I think you should take it a bit easy on yourself as the whole DOS Box thing seems to have brought you down a bit [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

...I like rich and layered systems.


You couldn't tell this from having just 3 ship icons at your command at Midway? The fourth has to be tethered at French Frigate Shoals to do anything!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Then, I the only thing left to ask myself if it is a basically a simple game, is it still fun and worth the time?


Yeah it seems [:)]. This isn't AH's Midway where folks wrote and sold a strategy guide. Nor is it Flat Top. Nor thankfully is it a Grigsby game with 300 pages of interface how-to's.

This game will be superb vs the AI for beer and pretzels play once SSG adds randomness and more scenarios. And then some scenarios actually tuned to MP [:'(]

But it is a beer and prezels game. Search, click and hunt.

If it wasn't for such easy wheel-scrollable time compression and the ability to select when you want the clock to stop automatically for you, this game would be horrible. But these extremely user-friendly, interface design decisions make it an enjoyable 30 minute-1 hour abstraction in my gaming life. And the AI has balls.




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/10/2007 5:29:38 AM)

First post tips updated - I'll try to add to the list as things occur to me - no spoilers.




Baskaatje -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/10/2007 1:54:11 PM)

MarkShot, I have exactly the same feeling about the game: a very nicely done 'light' wargame about search, guess, decide-strike and wait for the results. No deep strategy here.
My main critisism is not in the game itself (very sleek and well organised) but in the lack of a campaign in which long term goals are your main focus. No logistics, no real need to capture certain islands or harbors/capes other than VP reasons, no need for preservation of your forces to fight another day if you can sink the scenario designated enemy TF.

Because of all this, I remembered my all time favourite game (1995 I think), QQP's "Battles of the South Pacific" and bought a (used, but as new) copy from Chris Dean at NWS and having a world of fun with it again (despite it being a DOS game). In this game you have the whole South-Pacific theater to play in (eastern New-Guinea, Rabaul, Truk, the Solomons, New Caledonia and the Australian coastline). In the long campaign (june 1942 - june 1943) you need to plan ahead, train your pilots and squadrons, decide which bases to expand or even build new bases, send convoys with supplies, send out subs, manage your landbased squadrons and even deploy army units.
It is not a Grigsby game (so no 300+ page manuals) and the GUI is very intuitive. TF's can be formed at will (up to 15 ships per TF), CAP and LR-CAP designated (yes!! LR-CAP too!) both with land- and carrierbased squadrons. Because the campaign runs for months and the Allies are getting more and more reinforcements (and better quality as time goes), the Japanese player needs to make some descicions fast and well thought out too. Capturing Guadalcanal and building it into a major bomberbase from which you can harras all US supply convoys? Or focus on New-Guinea and Pt Moresby and try an invasion of Australia?
In the early campaign the Japanese have an advantage in carriers, it then swings to the US to go back to the Japs in 6 - 8 weeks time. How to use this, knowing that more and more US reinforcements will arrive?

The game is of course graphically not as attractive as CAW, but not as bad as I remembered too! Because the main focus is on the map (and TF's are represented by square icons) and the map is not hexed based, the game still plays amazingly well.
For me it has worked out that QQP "BOSP" is a light to learn, deep to play game (and even more so after I had applied the patch V1.2, found at webgrognard) that I prefer to play over CAW! I like to fire up CAW for finding, hitting and sinking a TF (much better graphics) now and then, but for a longer term strategic naval game, I prefer BOSP. Only too bad BOSP is restricted to the South-Pacific and no follow up was ever made for the whole Pacific.......

Bas




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/10/2007 4:32:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: baskreuger

I have exactly the same feeling about the game: a very nicely done 'light' wargame about search, guess, decide-strike and wait for the results. No deep strategy here.



Hi bas,

I don't know if I agree with this or not. Were CaW a board-game, I suspect that we'd all be wowed by it, what with all the considerations which appear to have been factored into its movement, search and combat routines. There might be a need for a "game-master" to handle our moves and search/spotting for us. And it would keep us busy, too, as there would be a ton of die rolling. Does the game seem simple to us, sometimes, because so much of this stuff is automated, or do you want a game with less automation? For example, do you want a game where you handle the movement of a/c through the arm/spot/launch/forming up/on mission/landing/dispersed cycle, drag-n-drop 'em from one box to the next, or do you want the game to do it for you? I dunno, but I would suggest that the seeming "light" nature of the game is related to the degree to which the developer has managed to offload so many chores from the player to the game. Would the program/game be deeper if it were dumber?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)






Baskaatje -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/10/2007 5:43:30 PM)

Hi PoE,

No, that's not what I mean by "light". It is OK (and very wise too) to hand all these details of arming, fueling, take off, landing etc etc of our hands and into that of the capable PC.
It is in the strategic dimensions I find the game "light". What I want to do in a game is making tactical descicions in an operational/strategic environment. And that operational/strategic environment is missing.
And that is what I like so much in "BOSP", making tactical/operational descicions that can have operational/strategic repercussions in the medium and long term.

Bas




JSS -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/10/2007 8:33:44 PM)

Bas,

What you're commenting on goes beyond what CAW is... its an intermediate complexity operational wargame (Matrix site description)... it also focuses on the carrier aspect of naval warfare.  The game you describe above sounds quite interesting.  Have no idea if SSG would consider morphing CAW into a strategic level game (would certainly beyond the carrier focus of this game).

JSS




Adam Parker -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/11/2007 8:52:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JSS

Bas,

What you're commenting on goes beyond what CAW is... its an intermediate complexity operational wargame... Have no idea if SSG would consider morphing CAW into a strategic level game


Actually I think I know what Bas is saying and I agree with him. A game which pits forces in a scenario at such great distances, is strategic. This game is in fact, a wierd blend of operational/tactics in its own schizophrenic way.

But at such great distances players should have much more input into the strategic coming to blows. It could be the hex scale, it could be a bug with TG speed making movement unrealistically fast. There's just not much room for maneuver and not nearly enough planning of the search. Yet how can this be given arenas of such proportions as below? Do we need even bigger maps? [&:]

[image]local://upfiles/6105/94F2BBC7203E4150A91F86A79B2BE152.gif[/image]




GoodGuy -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/11/2007 2:38:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: baskreuger

No, that's not what I mean by "light". It is OK (and very wise too) to hand all these details of arming, fueling, take off, landing etc etc of our hands and into that of the capable PC.....

Right, I don't expect it to be a clickfest where the commander of a carrier, a TG or a whole theater is supposed to make detailed decisions about the color of the pilots' pants. This can (and should) be abstracted, means handled by the AI/system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: baskreuger
It is in the strategic dimensions I find the game "light". What I want to do in a game is making tactical descicions in an operational/strategic environment. And that operational/strategic environment is missing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Actually I think I know what Bas is saying and I agree with him. A game which pits forces in a scenario at such great distances, is strategic. This game is in fact, a wierd blend of operational/tactics in its own schizophrenic way.

Well, a game like this does not necessarily have to incorporate strategic elements. But the (lemme call it) narrow scope makes me wish there'd be more to it.

It is somewhat schizophrenic, that's true:
It would put you in command of several TGs, while you would still be able to control processes on each carrier (example: you can send a TG's light carriers' torp. bombers to target A, while sending a CV's bombers [along with escorts] to hit target B, leaving the CVLs' fighters for CAP), yet you cannot detach any CV(L) or BB, be it a scenario design parameter or not, although units within a TG were handled way more flexible historically, and yet you cannot coodinate your submarine operations with the tasks of your carrier groups within a given TO. There was quite some cooperation within these 2 arms of the forces, historically, especially since the IJN naval com. could be read/tracked.

Strikes against airbases are completely useless, strikes against vital land-based assets (radar, industry, supply-systems/routes, defense installations) are not even rendered/considered. I understand the idea to focus/narrow things down, if you want to display carrier operations, but there was much more to carrier warfare than just trying to sink enemy ships or to reduce enemy CAP capabilities, so quite some depth is missing.

Example:
Historically, CVLs (Indepence class) were supposed to have 9 fighters, 9 scout bombers and 9 torp planes initially, but were soon changed to around 24 fighter planes and 9 torp planes. So, CVLs had very limited capabilities and suffered of a high amount of aircraft accidents, due to the small size/ low weight of these carriers (bad for landings in rough weather), and a good amount of ammunitions had to be stored in the hangars.

Despite these shortcomings, the lead ship (USS Independence CVL-22) pioneered night carrier operations in August 1944, (Palaus operation, night recon + night CAP) for TF 38. I'd love to see this implemented in the game.
In October, the IJN sent a group to push back the beachhead on Leyte Gulf, and it was the Indepence with its night search planes (second part of the Battle of Leyte Gulf) tracking the IJN carrier group (BB Masashi was already sunk before), with the Indepence and other carriers sending strikes in the morning, sinking all four IJN carriers.
CVLs were vital for providing fighter cover and night fighter protection (pretty successful too) in late 1944 and participated in quite some air-ground strafing/bombing runs in preparation of Allied invasions, supporting beachheads or when attacking japanese airbases and coast lines in China/Vietnam.
I'd love to see night operations being implemented in the game at least, that would be the base for good custom scenarios, as these Ops were the major improvement / element in the development of carrier operations during the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
But at such great distances players should have much more input into the strategic coming to blows. .... [] There's just not much room for maneuver and not nearly enough planning of the search. Yet how can this be given arenas of such proportions as below? Do we need even bigger maps? [&:]


Yes I agree, the maps are small.... naval operations used to cover larger distances than in any major land battle, but major battles or encounters in the Pacific were still often limited to a certain (rather limited) TO (theater of operation), despite the large distances/proportions .... Midway, Coral Sea, for example. But, by providing this limited arena, the player feels like a hybrid of a commander of the PTO (as he's got several TGs and airforce bases at his disposal) and a skipper of a single TG, with both positions being shortened regarding abilities and scope.
A solution could be to make the land-based strikes fully automatic (fully controlled by AI) - thus limiting the player's control (to control naval units only), then resize the maps, while giving the player the ability to control all or some of the subs and arrange TGs as he likes. Also, the supply system could be changed to a bit more complex system (maybe like the player has to assemble and protect supply convoys, convoys from/to Australia for example).

Last but not least, carriers, along with DDs and light cruisers, covered ASW roles, a vital role not rendered in the game, also, search planes - especially float planes, were equipped with depth charges.

My 2 cents.




Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/11/2007 3:19:29 PM)

Fast carrier task groups could travel about 400 miles OVERNIGHT. Because of this, an enemy never completely knew where they were gonna show up next. This was one of the central conceptual strengths behind their creation. It could move in, strike, and then withdraw. Any SUCCESSFUL operation of the Kido Butai was going to be so conceived. Note that this is an advantage, but the vulnerability of carriers to attack means that it's also a constraint in that they must withdraw before an enemy can recover and deal them a possibly devastating riposte.

Carrier battles in the PTO were defined by the presence of land bases. The battles themselves took place in transitional zones between the combatants search/strike assets, as in the map example above. Midway is somewhat different in this regard, but only in the the IJN search assets are entirely sea-based, and therefore, at a disadvantage. It's also worth noting that Midway PROVED that IJN carrier assets couldn't go on station and fight in effective range of Allied air-bases.

It would appear that the designers have dealt with the above limitations effectively, in that they constrain the free-wheeling nature of the fast carriers by placing the objectives under a land-based, aerial umbrella. One or both sides are assigned missions against a land-base which gives the fighting focus and definition. The situations depicted by the game are historical in nature, albeit with variants. Were the game maps to be quadrupled in size, squared in area, if you will, it wouldn't significantly alter the nature of the fighting, because the fighting should still revolve around the objective(s).

As has been noted previously, what IS needed in the game are exit points, the underlying concept of which is a "safe area" to which units can withdraw, one where pursuing enemy carrier assets could venture only at grave risk, and therefore, are constrained from doing so. In the case of the SW Pacific, "Truk" would be a good example for the Japanese, or, in the Midway scenario, "Hawaii" for the Allied player. I believe that the developer is considering something along these lines. It'd be a good thing, IMO.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




MarkShot -> RE: A thread of strategy, tactics, and tips? (7/11/2007 8:45:28 PM)

Interestingly, the War Card scripting does allow for the definition of a "safe" area for a TGs. This is where a TG will flee to, but there is nothing within the game itself that really guarantees the safety of said area. So, when I have experienced that when you got the enemy on the ropes, you can basically chase and hound him to the map edge.

Generally, the designer will define land bases as threat areas via War Cards, but I haven't seen land based strike be very effective against naval forces.

---

When you consider the length of some of the scenarios and how far you can move overnight at 33kts and the striking distance, then the maps aren't all that large. In some cases, there is just enough room to withdraw from striking distance of the enemy.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875