RE: Considering the game..

RE: Considering the game.. (Full Version)

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

Message

Joe D. -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/29/2007 3:08:36 PM)
Well, this wouldn't be the first time I replied to my own post! I had turned the "Accurate Combat Results" option off when I first got the game, but soon realized this was unrealistic and turned it back to it's default "on" state. Only later did I notice that my fleets were getting hit w/CV air that the enemy shouldn't have had; at least according to my animated combat reports, which depicted that I had severely damaged his CVs, or so I thought. Very realistic, but not very bright on my part. Anyone else get self-suckered into going after what you thought was a "defenseless" fleet, only to get stung by the CVs you thought your opponent didn't have operational because you "saw" them reported as repeatedly hit? Does anyone know if a "ghosted" (sunk) ship w/ACR on is really sunk, or does this only apply to the actual level of damage to enemy ships, i.e., even w/ACR on, a ghosted ship is a sunk ship?

OldBoney -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/30/2007 3:28:26 AM)
From what I've seen "ghosted" ships are sunk. It's as if their place in the formation is missing. I also think if you have a good solid sighting based on 4-5 reports and it gets updated to show 1 fewer carrier following a strike, you can trust that too.

Erik2 -> The sinking of the Yamato (7/30/2007 5:35:46 PM)
I recently played the Philippine scenario where both Yamato and Musashi are present. Imagine my surprise when it took 5-6 torpedoes to finish off a measly DD and only 5-6 bombs to sink the Musashi. The follow-up attack really showed the technical superiority of US made torpedoes when one (1) torpedo hit sent the Yamato to the bottom... Guess I'll never win the lotto in real life.

Joe D. -> RE: The sinking of the Yamato (7/30/2007 7:55:54 PM)
I wonder if these torpedo results had anything to do w/Accurate Combat Results being set to its default (off), i.e., under and/or over reporting hits?

hank -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/30/2007 8:54:34 PM)
This has been a good thread so far. I was going to buy CAW but for specific reasons regarding my readings of naval warfare history, I ended up buying Guadalcanal from NWS (although its an HPS game). I think I made the right decision for now, for me. But I'm still looking for good naval warfare games that encompass the whole naval tactical situation and by that I mean a game that models surface-to-surface action, Carrier operations, and sub operations. I've never looked into WitP or UV but I will now after reading several posts that are both good and mixed regarding these two games. The Naval Warfares website has some games available now and some are still in development for naval combat. By the way, Guadalcanal is a good game yet its very limited in its scope and there are only a few scenario's. Its only a surface to surface engagement game. Its fairly easy to learn. The interface is much like HPS's PzCampaigns games with a few subtle differences. The game only offers direct control over main armaments and torpedoes. You can control each ship individually or as a group. As i mentioned, its fun to play but I think it will be like what others have said about CAW, its going to be a flash in the pan ... then I'll move on to the next game I've bought or I'll go back to my usual returnee games I've played for years. ... and my rant about upgrading previous scenarios to work with the latest engine. The reason why I didn't buy BiItaly (BiI) from SSG was because they showed no interest in upgrading the past (wonderful) scenario's from KP and BiNormandy to work with the new BiI engine. They were all the same scales. Korsun Pocket, Across the Dniepr, and Normandy were not upgraded initially when BiI was released. We got a lot of user scenarios for BiI but not the old SSG scenarios. I dont' think they understood why this is important to some (maybe many) of their users ... and I didn't understand why they couldn't see it my way ( :-) ). Oh well, history is history. I've bought Battlefront knowing they may not upgrade the stock sce's when they put out the next version ... at least my eyes are open this time. Keeping things upgraded is not an unusual practice. HPS has kept PzC titles upgraded all the way back to the very first battles they sold (smolensk 41). I know there's a lot of HPS bashers here, of which I'm not one, but they have a pretty good and consistent game plan and lots of active players. (... I'll concede one factor, PzC's are not inexpensive but if you look on the internet you can buy them for less from other suppliers who will at this point remain nameless ... do your own research ... hehe ) my 2 cents

David Heath -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 3:00:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarkShot 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. What some of you might not know is that CCAW was not a original released game but a more a bundle pack of 3 or 4 version of CAW. So that would explain a lot about the amount of scenarios in the game. David

MarkShot -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 3:29:15 AM)
Dave, My point, I was making, for me personally, CAW/CCAW simply lacks the depth I like to see in a game such that it evolves the longer I play. Of course, for others, that may be no problem at all, and, in fact, an attraction. In another thread, I got up to about 22 points one could apply to playing the game. Perhaps, there is more to it than that, but so far no one has added anything beyond what I wrote. For other games, I have managed to develop guides ranging from 100-300 pages; those 22 points are basically about one page unillustrated or 3-5 pages illustrated. However, once again it really depends on the player how much learning curve and depth is desirable. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1505276 As far as CCAW being a compilation, you are quite right. Although CAW (the Matrix Release) lacks the breath of scenarios available with CCAW, it does have multi-player, native Windows support, and UI enhancements. Additionally, you might add that CAW (the original SSG release) didn't come with a scenario editor I believe. Where as CAW (the Matrix Release) does. (I, also, have a thread around here somewhere enumerating the improvements made with the Matrix release, since I recently had the chance to play both versions.) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1499587

martxyz -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 10:11:15 AM)
I'd be grateful for some help on this topic of whether or not to buy CAW. I had been looking forward to its release, and had intended to buy as soon as funds allowed. I noticed that initially, there was a large amount of forum activity, and the comments from members seemed very favourable. But, suddenly, the activity stopped and most posts are now being made to this thread, and this makes me very wary of buying CAW. As I haven't played the game, I'm not really in a position to judge people views about the AI or the comprehensiveness of the game model and scenarios. But, from my reading of people comments, I get the impression that, at the end of the day, the main beef is that there are just too few scenarios. I appreciate that CCAW was a sort of compilation, hence the wider range of scenarios, but could people tell me if the small number of scenarios is their main concern. The related issue is that there seems to be a feeling that it's all a bit quick and simple. What I don't understand is, that when it was released, this simplicity, and the speed with which you could play out a scenario, was being discussed in a positive way, as it made the game fun, addictive, and easier to fit into life as we know it. My impression was "this in NOT a WW2 version of Harpoon, but it is fun, and gave a reasonably accurate impression of the nature of WW2 carrier battles. I just wondered what's changed to make people change their minds and feel a bit miffed. My question is just a request for information. I'm not making a point of any kind. Thanks Martin

Froonp -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 2:18:29 PM)
CAW is a great game, and SSG is a great team. CAW may have a low number of initial scenarios, but so did the original CAW. Give them the time, and you'll have one day as much scenarios that you had in CCAW. The price, hey, they need to earn a living too, to keep on working on our hobby, so don't hesitate whatever the price. Good programmer / designer teams are rare, and IMO SSG are one of the best, so do not hesitate to give SSG its reward for working for us so hard and for such a long time.

martxyz -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 2:40:19 PM)
Hi Froonp Thanks for that. The information was helpful. I know SSG are a great bunch. I bought all the Decisive Battles Series (though not Battlefront for some odd reason). I also visit their forum regularly, and know they really pleaant and so are the forum members. I also have no quibble about the price, especially if you compare it with shop prices of games. I wonder if you could tell me if the "Physical/Manual" version is now coming through smoothly, and roughly how long it takes to arrive, as I know there had been some initial hiccups. If anyone could tell me I'd be grateful. Anyway, thanks again. I'll just wait and see what's happening with the delivery of physical copies, and then cough up the money! Cheers Martin [:)]

Joe D. -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 2:42:48 PM)
As I've already invested in CaW, I really can't say w/o bias whether someone else should or shouldn't buy it. But I've had something of a change of heart about the game; CaW seems more "replayable" than I originally thought after I played the same scenario 5 times in a row, and it never played exactly the same. Also, the ease of set-up and the quick pace of the game is a refreshing change from the time invested playing UV (or WitP), which admitedly has much more depth than CaW. (CF, a carrier-tactic heavy version of UV, is another alternative, but it's still in the alpha development stage). I might wait to read the future CaW posts to see what the first patch does; it's already being worked on, and the few bugs reported will surely be fixed. The real question is what will be improved; more realism, more sub activity -- even if you have no control over them -- and hopefully more scenarios. If the latter, CaW will prove to be an investment, instead of just an expensive purchase.

BlitzDude -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 2:50:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mart I'd be grateful for some help on this topic of whether or not to buy CAW. I had been looking forward to its release, and had intended to buy as soon as funds allowed. I noticed that initially, there was a large amount of forum activity, and the comments from members seemed very favourable. But, suddenly, the activity stopped and most posts are now being made to this thread, and this makes me very wary of buying CAW. To Mart: I haven't bought the game yet either. I'm waiting to see what the reaction is to the forthcoming patch. From what I understand the scenario editor has a few glitches and I'm waiting to see what other tweaks come along. I'm very hopeful for CAW. I want it to succeed, but - as in trading stocks, etc. - you can't let emotions dictate the very obvious diminshment of enthusiasm for the product post-release. Frankly, $50 is a lot to ask of someone when so much is yet to be demonstarted. I typically pay more like $30-$40 for my games and play them for years without losing interest. To everyone: Does refueling come into play at any point in any of the scenarios? Are ANY decisions made on the basis of fuel? Are their oilers around and do you get to experience the logistical side of naval warfare at all?? Thanks!

Scott_WAR -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 5:33:51 PM)
2 main problems with the game. The first problem, isnt really so much of a problem, as the way the game is designed. Some feel its just too simple, which equates into not much repayability. If there are only a few things to do, well you will end up doing them all the time, and repetition brings boredom. However, to many, that simplicity is what sets the game apart from other wargames, its simplicity gives it the ability to be played in a short amount of time. Thats a REALLY REALLY simplified explanation, but I dont wish to write an hour long review. The 2nd problem, and the REAL problem in my opinion, is the lack of scenarios. There are 5 scenarios to play, each having a variation or two, but the variations are usually just the addition of a carier, and dont really make much difference in the way the escenario's play out. Add to this that in every scenario, the same ships start at the same positions every time,.... and you can see where the things can get to feel like the "same old same old" after playing each scenario a couple of times.

martxyz -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 5:52:28 PM)
Hi Scott, Thanks for the help. Many years ago I regularly played Harpoon (the original) and enjoyed it. But now, something a lot simpler suits me just fine, so as you pointed out, for some people the simplicity can be an advantage. I think I would be one of those who'd find it a plus. [:'(] Cheers Martin

Scott_WAR -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 6:46:26 PM)
Oh and dont forget, SSG is working on a patch, and they do have a good reputation so the bugs should be fixed soon, and hopefully they will convert some of the CCAW scenarios and add them via a patch. Lets just hope they dont go the EA route and try to sell us a scenario pack. When the editor is fixed we will see lots of user made scenarios I hope, thus if they do try to sell us the scenarios, we wont have to buy, I am sure a user will convert them for us.

OldBoney -> RE: Considering the game.. (7/31/2007 8:10:17 PM)
refueling - Yes in at least one case, Eastern Solomons, I think part of your force starts low on fuel. You can refuel in a friendly port or from a fleet oiler. There seems to be some chance factor here for sometimes you fill your tanks quicker and refueling at sea seems slower than in port. The fuel consumption rate is a function of speed and the starting fuel level can be set in the editor. replayability - There's a lot of capability in the editor (it appears to me) for introducing more randomness into the scenarios. For me the editor is pretty straight forward until I get to the warcards. I find that sometimes they do what I want and sometimes not. When the editor is fully functional and we're up to speed using it I think it should be possible to introduce a lot of variation into scenarios. The pitfall here may be the difficulty of testing scenarios with a lot of random paths.

EUBanana -> RE: Considering the game.. (8/7/2007 9:11:57 PM)
Well, I've been pondering buying this one too but am holding off, for now, till I see some more positive stuff on the forums. I'll peek in again if this patch materialises. Still, I weigh in in the hope that the prospect of future sales will keep up the chances of patches and more scenarios appearing. [:D]

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Considering the game.. (8/8/2007 3:09:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Well, I've been pondering buying this one too but am holding off, for now, till I see some more positive stuff on the forums. I'll peek in again if this patch materialises. Still, I weigh in in the hope that the prospect of future sales will keep up the chances of patches and more scenarios appearing. [:D] I know that a suggestion from me that you should buy the game could appear just slightly biased, so we'll just take that as read. I would just say that while there are some people who always want more, the game is selling and reviewing very well so by sitting on the fence you are missing out on a superb implementation of what was and is a really great game. Gregor

TheHellPatrol -> RE: Considering the game.. (8/8/2007 7:25:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Well, I've been pondering buying this one too but am holding off, for now, till I see some more positive stuff on the forums. As it stands CAW is an awesome piece of software. The interface is superb and gameplay absolutely riveting. I really cherish this game and my only complaint was that because it is so fun i wish there was more[&o](i'm greedy, i admit it). It does however play out differenty every time and is very easy to pick up and play, if this game had a grand campaign like Witp i don't think i'd ever see my Wife and kids again[:D].

flintlock -> RE: Considering the game.. (8/10/2007 9:48:38 AM)
Gregor, nice to read that the game is selling well (the positive reviews aren't surprising). Hopefully it shall continue to enjoy further success for it really is great game and very enjoyable to play.

LarryP -> RE: Considering the game.. (8/10/2007 8:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol As it stands CAW is an awesome piece of software. The interface is superb and gameplay absolutely riveting. I really cherish this game and my only complaint was that because it is so fun i wish there was more[&o](i'm greedy, i admit it). It does however play out differenty every time and is very easy to pick up and play, if this game had a grand campaign like Witp i don't think i'd ever see my Wife and kids again[:D]. I agree. Just give me more! [sm=happy0065.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.613281