Considering the game.. (Full Version)

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



Message

Stele -> Considering the game.. (7/21/2007 8:18:11 PM)

Hey guys. I'm a big carriers battle reader and this game has caught my attention. I've recently played "War in the Pacific" and enjoyed it. However, with work and all its hard to dedicate time and effort into it and at times I forget the rules of the game. I especially enjoyed the carrier fights.

I've never played the Carriers at War series, so I'm not sure what I'd be in for until I actually play it for myself, even though I've read through the entire forum.

I get a sense that the game is pretty straight forward and may be a little easier to learn and play than "War in the Pacific." What has me worried though is what is the replay value like? Once I run through all the scenarios, and it doesn't sound like a whole lot to be honest with you, what will I have to look forward to? Also, how long does one scenario last? I remember War in the Pacific scenarios would take me ages to finish and I liked that. I know you can create scenarios, but is that more tedious than what its worth? Is there a scenario generator? In essence, is it worth the price?



Venator -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/21/2007 10:00:37 PM)

On balance I'd say it's slightly over-priced as it stands. the game is entertaining but the manual is rather lacking in important details and the interface doesn't really make up this lack as much as it should - finding information about attacks is not intuitive but the manual doesn't really make it very clear where this information can be found.

The scenarios are quite fun to play - and there is some replayability value. But to be honest I did expect a wee bit more than we're given. There is a sad lack of real choice - you can't group your task forces yourself pre-mission - it's all done for you (just being able to do that would add tremendously to the game).

I really feel that there is a brilliant game hidden in here, struggling to get out. But at the moment it's just a good time passer, not a classic.



LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/21/2007 10:20:26 PM)

One comment in reply... CAW drove me back to WitP.



Joe D. -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 4:18:17 AM)

Many of us anxiously awaited this game -- and some boxed-set customers apparently still are waiting for it -- but I was a little disappointed at the lack of scenarios, all of which play rather quickly despite the variant options.

Luck and uncertainty in sightings seems to play a major role in winning this game, which allows for some replayability, but after several weeks, I'm almost done with CaW.

The developers put a good deal of effort into CaW's graphics and interface, which comes complete w/tooltips, but not much else seems improved over the old CCaW.

Hopefully a patch or two will put this game back in my active arsenal.



BlitzDude -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 4:36:05 PM)

I haven't bought this game yet.  I'm interested to see what the new patch brings.  Being able to edit and create your own scenarios with a totally serviceable editor is a MUST for me.  I have attempted to play WitP and it's just too much of a good thing for me.  I end up getting bogged down.  CaW seems like it offers more fo what I'm looking for.  But $50 is a lot to shell out for a game that apparently has such limited replayability.  I'm also concerned about some of the misgivings regarding the mechcanics of the game engine as expressed on the forum.  I REALLY want to like this game.  Will be reading further developments but the fact that this board has gone virtually dead silent doesn't bode well.  Good luck with the patch! 



Venator -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 5:16:37 PM)

quote:

I REALLY want to like this game. 


Yeh, that's how I feel. But at the moment although I quite like it I find it rather frustrating and ultimately unsatisfying, if reasonably enjoyable. A shame.

One reason is that I don't actually feel that what I do makes a deal of difference. Send out search planes. Guess where the Jap carriers/transports are. Send out planes. Hope for the best. All while hiding in the clouds if possible. There is uncertainty, but little real tension I find.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 7:23:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Venator

quote:

I REALLY want to like this game. 


Yeh, that's how I feel.


I felt like that too, for a while, then I stopped trying [;)]

There is perhaps a week, or half a week of decent fun to be had with this game, depending on how fast you play or how many hours you devote to gaming daily, and that's it.

I could play through all - and I mean ALL - scenarios with the side of my choosing in less than two hours, and that's without cutting any corners, and win them all - AI is that bad, or that predictable. MP is barely usable (meaning - say, two evenings of fun, if you manage to find anyone to play with, until you notice just how badly implemented MP is)

I don't comment much on game prices, but at 50 bucks CAW is solid contender for Most Overpriced Game Ever in my book.



Rebel Yell -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 7:46:28 PM)

[img]http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif[/img]



LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 7:56:41 PM)

Amen brother!

Tagline reply:
Joel 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, 'I am strong.' "



MarkShot -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 8:43:09 PM)

Well, I have CAW and CCAW. CCAW certainly has a lot more replay included in the basic package. However, I have taken a break from CCAW as well.

Except for perhaps 10-12 basic strategic rules I expounded in another thread, I just cannot find much strategic depth to the game. The games I buy ... I want to play more, learn more, play more, learn more, ... I just couldn't find that cycle of increasing depth and intellectual stimulation with further time invested. Of course, it could simply be my poor powers of observation, but having challenged the community here to add to my basic rules of play ... there weren't any takers.

My evaluation: It is a good game to get into quickly without an arduous learning curve, but beyond that initial exposure, the game will forever remain at that level. Thus, whether it's worth getting is really very much dependent on the temperment of the customer himself or herself.

By the way, the thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1505276



LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 10:13:17 PM)

The last two games I bought here are CAW and UFO Extraterrestrials. I been kicking myself in the seat of my shorts ever since. [:@]



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/22/2007 10:15:58 PM)

I have two viewpoints on this game, one being that it is very exciting to play and has an interface and beauty that is hard to beat. On the other hand, like another title from SSG...Battlefront, we are given less and less meat and yet promised these ghostly "extra scenarios" of which we STILL haven't seen(with an ai, 1 without/whoop). For me money isn't an issue <knocks wood> but it is way overpriced in comparison to games of the past.
I am glad to have CAW because i have grown sick and tired of wasting my time in front of a PC while playing games that need to be patched or get more content. CAW is elegant and a quick fix to relive some of the fun of the good old days of gaming when i was younger and had more patience. Personally i will no longer wait for anything anymore...patches or content...if it isn't perfect i'll spend my time and money on my kids or guitars/guns/golf clubs/cigars/etc...The thrill is gone[:'(].
If you like Witp, as i do, and you are interested in this subject then CAW is the game for you. These days don't ever expect to get your moneys worth if your not prepared to write it off at the beginning[;)].



jazman -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 12:27:58 AM)

One indicator is that the forum activity simply dried up one day. We all reached the dead end at the same time.



LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 12:34:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

If you like Witp, as i do, and you are interested in this subject then CAW is the game for you. These days don't ever expect to get your moneys worth if your not prepared to write it off at the beginning[;)].


I play WitP, WPO, and UV all the time but WitP is full of unfixed bugs. I run the WitP Decoder on each scenario before playing in WitP and most are full of problems. Even the mods I have. [:@]

Battlefront... I won't even go there. [:-]



JD Walter -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 3:52:58 AM)

Hi _Stele,

I consider CAW a good, simple game which hearkens back to the earlier basic boardgames of Avalon Hill like Tactics II, Gettysburg, Waterloo, etc. It's about similar in complexity to those. Scenarios play quicky and can be completed in an hour or two.

Like the earlier AH games (i.e., pre-Squad Leader, or "Generation 1"), once you've studied the scenarios and played them a couple of times from both sides, the strategies become straightforward. For that reason, CAW can be criticized as lackig a certain amount of depth. However, for a quick, fun "beer and pretzels" game, it is a very good choice.

I am glad I bought it. I come from the days of boardgaming and remember when playing AH's "Jutland" or BL's "Flat Top" thinking how nice the future would be when I and my opponent could simply type our moves into a computer.

CAW is very reminiscent of "Flat Top" and, from this perspective, I am satisfied with the efforts Ian Trout and SSG have put forth. The game is colorful and very easy both to learn and to play. It's a very good computer wargame to introduce new players to the hobby to.

For more experienced players and old vets, I think they would be better satisfied with a more complex game like one of Gary Grigsby's designs here at Matrix. I think both have their strengths and come back to CAW when I want to play something quick and less complex (or detailed) than, say, UV or SSG's own Decisive Battles series.

Hope this helps!



MarkShot -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 5:06:33 AM)

Well, I decided to play through another game of CCAW, since it has been a while.

What this game needs is something like Rowan's Battle of Britain where you are offered to take control of one of the planes in the CAP when the enemy is spotted or one of the planes in the strike group when the target TG is spotted. That would definitely do a lot to add excitement. Then, there should be an option to scale the results of the combat based on how you personally flew. :)



Hertston -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 2:05:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

If you like Witp, as i do, and you are interested in this subject then CAW is the game for you. These days don't ever expect to get your moneys worth if your not prepared to write it off at the beginning[;)].


That's always been the case, I think. I doubt more than one in ten games that I have bought has ever delivered the replayability and long term interest that many assume should always be there as of right. Sometimes the game has been poor, or broken, but on far more occasions it's just that I didn't get on with it; even those games previous history suggest I should have liked. It's always pot luck, even demos don't go far in establishing long-term potential. I don't think that has ever changed.

Sometimes I think people expect too much. Although I agree with most of the comments above, I don't grudge the money spent on CAW; I've had more than enough hours of fun out of it (for the price of a halfway decent restaurant meal) even if I never touch it again. Far rather that than a game with "great depth", "replayability" and "full scenario editing and modding facilities" I'm bored with after an evening!



MarkShot -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 4:25:52 PM)

For me, game purchasing is less about money and more about my limited time.

Assuming I never bought a new system or upgraded my software, then at any given time, I will, at least, have 2-3 games on my system such that I could happily play them for the rest of my life. Some common and well known examples: Aces of the Deep, Sid Meier's Gettysburg (+ downloaded battle packs), CM series (+downloaded scenarios/operations), ...

So, I am going to buy very few new games each year. The money isn't going to be that substantial when compared to other activities or the total investment in computer hardware (system, displays, sound, ...). However, my time is quite limited. Any new game and its learning curve is weighed against that set of "timeless" games I have on my hard drive. The only games I invest money or time in are ones which might join that "timeless" set. The biggest loss is a new game which consumes a huge time investment learning (months), but once learned cannot join the "timeless" set. It's time that could have been better spent with my old favorites easily enjoying myself.

When I look at CCAW with the amount of material there and the game engine design, it could potentially join that "timeless" set. However, it seems to lack the depth needed for long-term play. CAW is basically the same as CCAW, but lacking the breadth of material. The good thing is that you can very rapidly get up to speed on CAW; a couple of days is sufficient. You cannot really waste your time with the game ... just questionable how much extended value you can squeeze out of it.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 4:25:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston
That's always been the case, I think. I doubt more than one in ten games that I have bought has ever delivered the replayability and long term interest that many assume should always be there as of right. Sometimes the game has been poor, or broken, but on far more occasions it's just that I didn't get on with it; even those games previous history suggest I should have liked. It's always pot luck, even demos don't go far in establishing long-term potential. I don't think that has ever changed.

Sometimes I think people expect too much. Although I agree with most of the comments above, I don't grudge the money spent on CAW; I've had more than enough hours of fun out of it (for the price of a halfway decent restaurant meal) even if I never touch it again.


Absolutely true, except in comments regarding demos - I find demos 99% correct in predicting whether I'll like the game or not. However, I realize that making demos is simply beyond the capabilities or reach - or even a business logic - for many developers, big and small.

Personally I feel cheap and pathetic for even mentioning the price in my comments about CAW. I hate people who complain about the game prices because even at 50 bucks a PC game is relatively inexpensive form of entertainment.

However, the very fact that I feel compelled to comment the game prices with the last batch of very very content-poor Matrix releases, is telling. 50 bucks for CAW, CEAW, CoI, Battlefront.... very short, meagre, tiny, unpolished, and/or content-poor games or re-releases, even if they are built on decent basic engines, leaves a sour after-taste in gamer's mouth....... 20-30 bucks would be a fair price for such games. So yes, even though I kinda hate myself for doing it, I did stoop down to commenting the game prices [:@]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/23/2007 5:28:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

However, the very fact that I feel compelled to comment the game prices with the last batch of very very content-poor Matrix releases, is telling. 50 bucks for CAW, CEAW, CoI, Battlefront.... very short, meagre, tiny, unpolished, and/or content-poor games or re-releases, even if they are built on decent basic engines, leaves a sour after-taste in gamer's mouth....... 20-30 bucks would be a fair price for such games. So yes, even though I kinda hate myself for doing it, I did stoop down to commenting the game prices [:@]



I've always considered myself an ambassador of sorts for computer wargaming, one who sought to get his board-gaming buddies interested in games like Sid Meier's Gettysburg or Close Combat. It was a hard-sell at best, even with fantastic games like those two. I won't burden you with my pet theories as to why so many of them refused to take the leap, but, the fact remains, many, many failed to do so.

Now, the computer end of the hobby has experienced a retrenchment in interest and sales, something on the order of eighty- or ninety-percent. It can't help matters that so few quality titles are emerging from publishers like Matrix, ones that are feature-rich, properly tested and fun to play. In that kind of environment, I CAN'T POSSIBLY ENTICE OTHERS INTO BUYING THESE GAMES, regardless of the price.

A familiar refrain from developers, on this forum and others, seems to be, "we've been making these games since the flood, and (until recently) managed to sell a hell of a lot of them, so don't go telling us how to run our business." Well, lovely, but I can't peddle them, neither to grognard nor to noob, if they are of such poor quality as to be unusable by anyone who's serious about their gaming.

There is no title in the Matrix inventory which I find compelling enough to ask a friend to purchase, at any price, with the proviso that, were he to do so, the game might someday be completed. Apart from the ethical concerns, I know that it simply won't wash, not anymore. At some point, you kill the goose that laid the golden-egg, and that time draws nearer with each of these failures, the "glory-days" of six-figure sales, notwithstanding.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



MarkShot -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/24/2007 4:50:07 AM)

Well, I have been playing this evening (CCAW).

One thing about this game is that reversal of fortunes are very possible at any moment and gradual degradation one's position is not that likely to happen.

In many ground combat games (if one is not playing on a tactical battlefield pivoting on a few key pieces of armor), then infantry will be fairly robust. It is hard to have the battle turn on one single mistake. Infantry will soak up your mistake and all will not be lost. However, in this game, you can be winning fairly handily and just get caught for 10 minutes with your pants down and everything can turn around.

Of course, such turn arounds do have a significant element of luck, but I suppose the whole point of good play is to follow a set of rules of thumb such that they should diminish the window by which luck can break in the enemy's favor.



Joe D. -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/24/2007 2:54:56 PM)

... One thing about this game is that reversal of fortunes are very possible at any moment ...

Well, at least that's realistic; consider the IJN's sudden reversal of fortunes @ Midway, although it could be argued that is was actually a series of deadly miscalculations that led to the destruction of their carriers.

One indicator is that the forum activity simply dried up one day. We all reached the dead end at the same time.

Sadly true; despite all the self-inflicted hype, CaW was a flash in the pan.

Well, my search planes are still out, hoping for at least an alpha sighting of a patch.



Rocko911 -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 4:27:37 AM)

I too was looking forward to this title for a long time. I am disappointed by the lack of scenarios or an editor to create our own. This would even allow us as a community to create and swap them. I have moved beyond this game and luckily in this day and age of mega gigabyte HD it will stay till a scenario editor comes out. Also this game and its price has really made me be more carefull on what I buy from Matrix anymore. I currently have over 8 of their games and only 2 of them get consistent play. By the way I have a copy of Forge of Freedom for sale cheap (god that game drove me nuts and to boredom).



LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 5:29:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LRRP

Also this game and its price has really made me be more carefull on what I buy from Matrix anymore. I currently have over 8 of their games and only 2 of them get consistent play. By the way I have a copy of Forge of Freedom for sale cheap (God that game drove me nuts and to boredom).


I have over 22 of their games. I also bought FoF download and the hardcopy. A nice box, CD, and a thick colorful manual that much of is useless since the major updates and patching. Since they are not going to update the manual, but instead someday release a PDF addendum, I would also sell my copy for cheap. I have been playing AACW and they have a manual update download for each of the 6 patches the game has had. No waiting. Nice concept huh? [;)]




Erik2 -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 1:48:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LRRP

I too was looking forward to this title for a long time. I am disappointed by the lack of scenarios or an editor to create our own. This would even allow us as a community to create and swap them. I have moved beyond this game and luckily in this day and age of mega gigabyte HD it will stay till a scenario editor comes out. Also this game and its price has really made me be more carefull on what I buy from Matrix anymore. I currently have over 8 of their games and only 2 of them get consistent play. By the way I have a copy of Forge of Freedom for sale cheap (god that game drove me nuts and to boredom).


There is a full editor editor with the game.
SSG used the same editor when creating the boxed scenarios.
I would wait for the first patch before attempting to do any serious work in the editor since there are a couple of known bugs wich are promised to be fixed.
There are a lot of scenarios in the previous CCAW-version wich should be fairly easy to convert.



Scott_WAR -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 6:23:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

There are a lot of scenarios in the previous CCAW-version wich should be fairly easy to convert.



Really, then you must wonder why they werent converted and included in this release........... especially considering ANYBODY could tell this release was far too short on scenarios. I always thought subsequent releases of a title should try to improve on content, not revert back to day 1. With all the scenarios out there its almost criminal how few this game shipped with.



Venator -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 7:23:33 PM)

quote:

Really, then you must wonder why they werent converted and included in this release


Good point.



JSS -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 8:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venator

quote:

Really, then you must wonder why they werent converted and included in this release


Good point.


Not really IMHO. Here's my unofficial HO of how things went:

There were lots of requests for getting the game released (i.e why is this taking so long?). Completing the game engine was priority one... this occured with seven scenarios at the fully developed level.

Since the game comes with a full up scenario editor, the relevant question here is "when will additional scenarios be released?" Same question applies for folks who want scenarios tweaked for MP.

JSS




TheHellPatrol -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 8:31:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JSS


Not really IMHO. Here's my unofficial HO of how things went:

There were lots of requests for getting the game released (i.e why is this taking so long?).

JSS


[X(]Oh, come on! A bunch of whining made you guys rush ahead of yourselves? Sheesh, that is a lame answer...you'd have been better off saying nothing IMHO[;)].



Scott_WAR -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/25/2007 9:52:30 PM)

If people complaining influenced the release of this game in any way, then that was the first big mistake.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.75