Too easy ? (Full Version)

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



Message

rogeur -> Too easy ? (7/5/2007 3:10:51 PM)

Hi there,

Being the owner of the original game (no, not on the apple, but atari st),
ihave bought this game yesterday because of the new looks and better game play.
So i thought. I've just played 3 scenario's and to be honest, it sucked.
Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.
Using the hour button and then strike sighting was enough.
I have many other games from matrix, but never was so disapointed .
For €47 i expected more.
But....maybe im wrong.
Do i miss something? A switch to make it more difficult perhaps?

Ty for your time



Adam Parker -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 3:39:19 PM)

Pearl and Wake are no shows imo. They're tuts.

I've got my money's worth out of Coral (which becomes easy once you grasp it) and Midway (ditto once you memorise the enemy TG's). Solomons is currently giving me a headache as the US. And I've yet to try the others believe it or not.

BUT it's likely I'm getting my money's worth because I've never owned the original CAW.

Just like I will not shell out money on the East Front/West Front re-release or Cross of Iron and I wished I'd never done so on the Harpoon or TOAW re-releases.

Alex has posted here that SSG is working on adding replayability features/randomness. That will change the gaming experience big time for all, I feel.



rogeur -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 3:41:44 PM)

I sure hope they can do that, i really want to play this game. [:)]



MarkShot -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 4:00:51 PM)

Well, I am playing CCAW while I wait for CAW patches.

I think I am average intelligence and can say that the game is not walk in the park. If the AI strike first, you are in for a world of hurt which only snowballs with the more you lose, the more you lose.



LarryP -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 8:23:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogeur

Hi there,

Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.


Have you tried as the Allies?



flintlock -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 8:35:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

...with the more you lose, the more you lose.

The above reminded me of Chrétien's "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

[:D]



Scott_WAR -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 8:55:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP


Have you tried as the Allies?


The game should be balanced for both sides. Including multiplayer in the game, but not even attempting to make the game balanced was,..........well.......... dumb.



Jason Petho -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 9:01:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Just like I will not shell out money on the East Front/West Front re-release


Although not a new game by any stretch of the imagination, I wouldn't call the Matrix Campaign Series just a re-release of the old series.

There are a number of new additions.

Jason Petho



LarryP -> RE: Too easy ? (7/5/2007 9:30:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP


Have you tried as the Allies?


The game should be balanced for both sides. Including multiplayer in the game, but not even attempting to make the game balanced was,..........well.......... dumb.


Off Topic we have the same number of posts. [:D] I haven't played as the Japanese but it seems to me from previous posts that they have an advantage. I could be 100% wrong too, just an observation and my sight may not be perfect. [;)]



82nd Airborne -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 1:02:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

I've got my money's worth out of Coral (which becomes easy once you grasp it) and Midway (ditto once you memorise the enemy TG's).


un-historical, but it is worth going into the editor and adding/moving some ships around to make TG's the same number. Coral is a pretty easy one if you play it real safe and just try to prevent a PM invasion. I've also re-jigged some of the TGs in that one and made a variant that adds the Akagi. That spices it up a bit!



quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Alex has posted here that SSG is working on adding replayability features/randomness. That will change the gaming experience big time for all, I feel.

great news!



MarkShot -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 2:48:50 AM)

Just open the manual to pages 50+. There are plenty war cards which can add randomness to scenarios:

TG_Movement (change movement orders)

Shift_TG_Location (put a TG in someplace other than its startup default)

Alter_TG_Mission (change TG's mission)

Delete_Warships (remove ships from a TG)

Transfer_Warships (move a ship from one TG to another)

So, really the power is there for a scenario designer to take a starting collection of objects (machine & land bases) and make subtle and not so subtle changes to the behavior of the scenario.

I believe there are two ways to go to achieve randomness:

(1) I think many of the war cards have probabilities associated with them. So, you can make a single scenario variant itself exhibit random force composition, location, and behavior upon startup.

(2) You can make multiple static scenario variants using the same objects but with different war cards. (Once CAW gets CCAW's ability secretly select a variant for the player to play, then this will also provide for random starts.)

---

In my inspection of some of the historical scenarios last night, #1 was done. So, players should be seeing some randomness unless that functionality is broken or the choices are too subtle to be easily noticed.



rogeur -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 8:41:45 AM)

So i should buy a game (caw in this case) alter it with the editor
so i can play and pay €47 for it. Im not a beta tester, im just an
simple guy who wants to play a war game.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 10:16:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogeur

Hi there,

Being the owner of the original game (no, not on the apple, but atari st),
ihave bought this game yesterday because of the new looks and better game play.
So i thought. I've just played 3 scenario's and to be honest, it sucked.
Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.
Using the hour button and then strike sighting was enough.
I have many other games from matrix, but never was so disapointed .
For €47 i expected more.
But....maybe im wrong.
Do i miss something? A switch to make it more difficult perhaps?

Ty for your time



Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor



Joe D. -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 3:26:04 PM)

I played my first game as the Allies (Wake scenario) and won an undeserved Decisive Victory. I say undeserved because the IJN sank many more ships than I did; in fact, I lost the entire Saratoga TG!

I unintentionally benefited from an old UV tactic; keep your carriers in separate fleets in separate hexes so that the AI can't hit them all at the same time. This means one carrier gets "sacrificed," but the others get their strikes in and usu. live to fight another day since most of the AI's air have already been spent sinking your "sacrifice."

Apparently the only reason I won the scenario was because my transports arrived at Wake unmolested (mission acccomplished) after my other two carrier TGs successfully dealt w/the IJN surface fleets to the SW; these TGs then hit the IJN carrier TG to the NW while it was chasing what was left of the Sara TG.

It looked like the IJN carrier TG had a case of "target fixation;" it followed the remains of the Sara TG until they sank every ship while ignoring the other Allied TGs who were coming after it. This wasn't very smart of the IJN AI; after eliminating the USS Sara early on, the AI should have addressed the other Allied carriers that were attacking its surface fleets. Instead the AI hunted the Sara TG to extinction long after the Sara was sunk and its TG no longer posed a real threat.

After all, the manual says this is a Carrier War, right? So why should an intelligent AI go after screening vessels when it has real threats (carriers) to deal with?

Then again, it's only my first game.




Blond_Knight -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 5:04:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
After all, the manual says this is a Carrier War, right? So why should an intelligent AI go after screening vessels when it has real threats (carriers) to deal with?


I wonder this everytime I launch a strike. Why do many of my Vals or Kates go after escort vessels when theres a carrier or two right there?



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:00:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

I wonder this everytime I launch a strike. Why do many of my Vals or Kates go after escort vessels when theres a carrier or two right there?



This has been discussed before. The developer has indicated that the frequency with which strike a/c will go after escorts which contain more lucrative targets (carriers) is variable and is influenced by factors such as aircrew quality.

IMO, the frequency appears to be too high and needs tweaking, especially for dive-bombers which flew higher, faster and had a better vantage point from which to peruse potential targets.

Torpedo bombers, particularly the TBD would be more likely to bomb a secondary target because they were more exposed.

Obviously, land-based assets, particularly those of the IJA or USAAF would be at a disadvantage in this regard because they were trained to attack ground targets rather than ships.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)





Joe D. -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:11:08 PM)

This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.

The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.



Blond_Knight -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:13:45 PM)

Thats a good point about the torp bombers vs dive bombers field of view.  But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:23:38 PM)

quote:

But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.


Trained, naval strike a/c were just superior in this regard to their land-based cousins. And yes, of the initial wave(s) of USN dive-bombers and torpedo-planes, ALL but a very few targeted a carrier, although a considerable number of VT never got close enough to their target to launch their ordnance. Of Hiryu's two strikes, I believe ALL of the VT and VB targeted the Yorktown. While this was but a single battle, the evidence does appear to undermine the developer's frequency of result in this regard.

This is almost off topic, but the source that you cite, the Fuchida book, has been totally discredited. And the hatchet work wasn't done by some jingoistic American out to embellish the exploits of the USN in World War 2, but rather by Japanese researchers. If you want to understand what really happened in the 1942 battles, a great place to start would be by having a mind-fart and forgetting everything that Fuchida had to say. The book is a pack of lies, by Japanese accounts.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Joe D. -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:33:51 PM)

I would think any dive bombers that spotted a CV would be chatting it up on the radio, so every aircraft in the strike would know there's still a high-value target, and in which direction it was going. Of course, the torpedo bombers would still have to deal w/screening vessels that get in the way of their run.

I think another problem w/the AI in my Wake game was it didn't appaer to search for my transports, but perhaps there's an algorithim for the Code of Bushido, i.e., attack battleships, not cargo.



HansBolter -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 6:38:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Thats a good point about the torp bombers vs dive bombers field of view.  But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.



BK, is thst the old Panzer Leader box cover art as your avatar? I love it!



rogeur -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 7:48:12 PM)


Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor


So what you're saying is that i should play the americans , because else it is to easy.
Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.
And for the record, this is not the same as the original, that one was really good.
I miss playing with the planes on deck.It has better looks, but the gameplay isnt to great, sorry.
Back to WitP for me.



ravinhood -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 8:11:24 PM)

snicker



82nd Airborne -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 9:21:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogeur


Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.



I thought the Japanese had to successfully invade PM for a win, otherwise the best they could do was draw? [&:]



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 11:22:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.

The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.


Perhaps the AI hadn't spotted the other TGs. It doesn't cheat, so it only attacks TGs it has actually sighted (unless it runs across some others by accident).

Gregor



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Too easy ? (7/6/2007 11:25:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogeur


Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor


So what you're saying is that i should play the americans , because else it is to easy.
Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.
And for the record, this is not the same as the original, that one was really good.
I miss playing with the planes on deck.It has better looks, but the gameplay isnt to great, sorry.
Back to WitP for me.


Well, on the theory that the customer is always right I suppose I should just forget everything I know about the gameplay in our game and agree with you, but I have to say its a struggle...

Gregor



Joe D. -> RE: Too easy ? (7/7/2007 1:22:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.
The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.

Perhaps the AI hadn't spotted the other TGs. It doesn't cheat, so it only attacks TGs it has actually sighted (unless it runs across some others by accident).
Gregor


OK, but if the AI's surface TGs are being attacked by enemy carrier planes, then shouldn't it start looking for those carriers instead of "wave hopping" against an already decimated TG w/o any carriers left?



martxyz -> RE: Too easy ? (7/7/2007 2:39:59 AM)

I'm sorry to see all this CAW bashing going on. I haven't played it, as it is on my "buy next" list, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to make some reasonable comment. The first is that CAW has a long and distinguished history and people have bemoaned it's demise for years, to the point that it practically had legendary status. Now, when it comes back, programmed by the same team, with all the advantages that the original CAW had, plus some extra facilities, suddenly the AI is no good. "It's not like the good old days" doesn't really work when your arguing with the original programmer.

Secondly, naval warfare, throughout the centuries has, despite many examples of brilliance, also been a history of lucky breaks, and complete and total cock-ups. The fact of the matter is that any damn thing could happen in most of the larger sea battles. The Rodney wasn't supposed to blow up like a fire-cracker, and the american aircraft carriers were so naughty that they forgot they were meant to be at Pearl Harbour, when the Japanese wnent to sink them. As I recall, they didn't call off the attack on the surface ships so that they could go play chasey for the carriers.

It's a game. It's pretty cheap. It's highly rated, has the same AI as the original which everybody worships, and there's no point telling Gregor that he doesn't know what he's talking about, unless you're suggesting he did the new programming whilst sucking on LSD tabs.

Give it a break, for heavens sake.

Finally, it is also the case, that in real life, in any land, air or sea battle, there's a good chance that one side has a much higher probability of winning. They never stopped the battle, rang each other up, and discussed whether they thought the play balance was about right.

Sorry - serious lack of patience. Gregor is being very polite, because as we all know, the customer always thinks he's right, even if he's not.



martxyz -> RE: Too easy ? (7/7/2007 2:48:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart
The Rodney wasn't supposed to blow up like a fire-cracker,

OOPS!! Make that the Hood - it's late! [>:]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Too easy ? (7/7/2007 2:53:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mart

I haven't played it, as it is on my "buy next" list, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to make some reasonable comment.



You could have fooled me.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375