RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Anthropoid -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 4:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Personally, I have never been a huge fan of fighting out the tactical battles in a strategic game. Especially if thet tactical portion relies on my eye hand coordinaation for success. I don't want an arcade clickfest to determine the outcome of my strategy. I almost always let the computer resolve the tactical battles in Medieval Total War. I picked up a copy of a game called Pacific Storm. What a mistake. Apparently somewhere embedded below the arcade action portion of the game is a strategy game. I never got past the arcade like implementation of placing me in the cockpit of a plane in teh first battle. One some gaming website the reviewer trashed the game because it had all this boring strategy stuff to deal with between the "action". Obviously the reviewer was the FPS type looking for "shoot-em-up action. I wanted just the opposite. I didn't want the success of the fights to be dependent on my skill piloting the bomber. If the tactical battles can't be turned off and left to the computer to resolve I certainly won't be purchasing the new game. Sorry, my previous post was very rambling. Let me simplify the key message for the true Grogs among us . . . If you guys have not tried Forge of Freedom, you really should check it out. This is a beautiful example of what I think is the future of turn-based strategy. This game is a full-fledged turn-based strategy game, in which you control the strategic level (including political factors, unit building and training, officer assignments and promotions/demotions), but it ALSO includes a tactical battle map engine for "detailed combat" option. You can choose to never use it or to use it for every battle, or to use it for every battle but then (at any time) let the battle resolve instantly. It is ideal flexibility. The other thing is: it is NOT, NOT, NOT in anyway like an RTS arcade game. No hand-eye coordination needed beyond slow ponderous mouseclicks [;)] In the tactical battles, opponent forces start out on opposite ends of a 55x55 hex map of randomly generated nature (but dependent on season and province). All the brigades comprising all the Div, Corps, Army that were in the province are present, and you can move brigades around as individual units with commanders attached, you can also split brigades into two units. Units move according to their initiative and the two rival sides take turns, just like in any other turn-based strategy engine. The key to doing well here, is in NO WAY dependent on quickness, but simply on knowing your units very, very well, and understanding tactics (as they manifest in that game engine) very well. Hopefully, what they have in mind for Carrier Force is something along these lines, and not something along the lines of an RTS "arcade" twitch fest.

HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 4:46:40 PM)
Sorry if I gave the worng impression. I wasn't trying to say that all strategy games coupled with a tactical battle resolution engine turn into arcade games or clickfests, just that the ones that do are the worst examples of the genre as far as I am concerned. However, even if the tactical battle simulator is itself a small "strategy" game, it still makes the outcome of the strategic game dependent upon my skill and acuity as a tactical commander rather than on the abilities of the actual historical tactical commanders, which, at least to a degree from my perspective degrades both it's historical accuracy and it's historical appeal. When I put Tanaka or Lee in command of my surface Task Forces it's the leadership abilities and skills of both I am relying on for the outcome of the encounter and not those of "little ole me". That is the most important point as far as I am concerned. If we are going to take control of the tactical battles, then of what use will the in game commanders be? As COMSOPAC I want to tell Mitscher to go out, find Yamamoto and "chew his ass"....I don't want to try to BE Mitscher.....that's a different game altogether for me.

tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 5:27:28 PM)
One thing is certain about CF and that is that it will not be a shoot 'em up. I believe the control over tactical things will reflect command of the forces involved in the action in a more active way than we do now. Still it's the length of the turns (time frame) and the effect on PBEM that concerns me the most. Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do.

pasternakski -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 6:20:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter However, even if the tactical battle simulator is itself a small "strategy" game, it still makes the outcome of the strategic game dependent upon my skill and acuity as a tactical commander rather than on the abilities of the actual historical tactical commanders, which, at least to a degree from my perspective degrades both it's historical accuracy and it's historical appeal. When I put Tanaka or Lee in command of my surface Task Forces it's the leadership abilities and skills of both I am relying on for the outcome of the encounter and not those of "little ole me". That is the most important point as far as I am concerned. If we are going to take control of the tactical battles, then of what use will the in game commanders be? As COMSOPAC I want to tell Mitscher to go out, find Yamamoto and "chew his ass"....I don't want to try to BE Mitscher.....that's a different game altogether for me. This is my concern, as well. One of the things I have faulted both UV and (to a greater extent) WitP for is that there is no clear definition of just exactly who you are within the context of the game. Still, I guess if the game is a considerable improvement on UV and you can just excise the tactical part without negative effect, I may buy it. I've got a lot to see first, though. I'm not the "shotgun wedding" father I used to be when it comes to coughing up dough for computer wargames...

pasternakski -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 6:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do. Yah, I hope so. Still, I've got a bad feeling about this. I have a recurring nightmare that I am in one of those old combo tactical-operational-strategic games where you start out in the theater commander's office, then teleport yourself to the bridge of a task force flagship, then run down into one of the turrets and boresight the cannon, then fly like Sally Field over to the deck of a carrier and climb into a fighter plane ... you know.

pad152 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 6:35:02 PM)
I would have preferred War in the Med, after WITP was released I never went back to UV. Sorry to say but I have little interest in Carrier Force, I'm getting sick of the pacific theatre and would like to see a UV type game (smaller scale than WITP) in other theaters and other time frames. With all of the improvements in the AE version of WITP, I think it will even be harder going back to UV/Carrier Force.

wworld7 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 6:53:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 With all of the improvements in the AE version of WITP, I think it will even be harder going back to UV/Carrier Force. I agree with this statement, there will be no going back for me. Retro-fitting Carrrier Force with AE improvements I do not see happening (this doesn't mean it can't). My hopes are the team tries to create a WITP-2.

Anthropoid -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 7:35:31 PM)
Don't listen to 'em Tankerace! Its a brilliant game plan! [:D] I cannot disagree with the "fly like Sally Fields" analogy . . . there is a certan undeniable unreality about being able to give orders at both the theatre and tactical level, and for the purist, I suppose there is no assuaging that profanity. But as far as the redundancy of "being" the assigned commanders in the tactical battles, FoF compensates in this way: Let us say you have formed up the Army of NE Virginia in which there is 1st Corps, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Divisions. 1st Corps has 9 Brigades in it, and the three Div are each fullup with 5 Brigades in each. Say for example you have Grant as a four star in charge of the Army, Meade as a three star in charge of the Corps, and two stars Thomas, Wolcroft, and Walters in charge of the three Divisions. Also say you have another 6 1 star generals assigned to some of the units. When the tactical battle map is spawned, you will have all fourteen of these brigades as a separate unit on the map, and each of the 11 Generals "assigned" to one of these Brigades. Because Grant is a four star, his leadership effects will impact all the Brigades on the battlefield, Meade will influence all the Brigades attached to 1st Corps as long as they stay within a certain distance, and each of the two stars will influence all the brigades under their Divisional command, and the one-stars will affect only the brigades to which they are attached. Generals can be unattached and reattached to alternative brigades during the course of battle. Generals have various attributes, special abilities, etc., and they confer some of these benefits to the units under their authority during tactical battles. So, the leaders abilities do not become moot during the tactical battles, but the tactical battles give a wiley player a chance to leverage their generals abilities even further. Call it unrealistic if you will, but after all it is a game. Leaders also influence how units get supply, train, refit etc. during the campaign scale turns. For me, if I am going to play in a fantasy land of one of these strategy games, the more multi-faceted and versatile the fantasies I can play in the better. Having a tactical engine that allows players to explore not only the implications of various decisions at the strategic level, but the pros, cons, opportunities and constraints manifest at the tactical level as a result of such tactical decisions is IMHO, a much better game fantasy than not. And for those who feel the tactical level is simply too big a leap of suspending disbelief, they can (in FoF anyway) simply turn off the Detailed Combat engine, and have all battles execute as they do in WiTP: instantly, based on the stats of the units and leaders involved. Hope this is more or less what you guys have planned Tankerace.

HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 7:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do. Yah, I hope so. Still, I've got a bad feeling about this. I have a recurring nightmare that I am in one of those old combo tactical-operational-strategic games where you start out in the theater commander's office, then teleport yourself to the bridge of a task force flagship, then run down into one of the turrets and boresight the cannon, then fly like Sally Field over to the deck of a carrier and climb into a fighter plane ... you know. Sounds a lot like that Pacific Storm game I picke up, except in that one you start out in the tactical simulator (apparently so you can get reeled in right away with the heart pounding action). Which, of course, meant that I never even made it to the strategic game part of it before consigning the CD to the "dead games" stack.

pasternakski -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 10:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid For me, if I am going to play in a fantasy land of one of these strategy games, the more multi-faceted and versatile the fantasies I can play in the better. Having a tactical engine that allows players to explore not only the implications of various decisions at the strategic level, but the pros, cons, opportunities and constraints manifest at the tactical level as a result of such tactical decisions is IMHO, a much better game fantasy than not. To each his own. I can see why a lot of people prefer that kind of thing, and I have nothing against it. I used to feel that same way about my chances of going to bed with Tyra Banks, too (then I realized how long a line of thoroughly despicable people I would be following with that and forgot about it instead). quote: And for those who feel the tactical level is simply too big a leap of suspending disbelief, they can (in FoF anyway) simply turn off the Detailed Combat engine, and have all battles execute as they do in WiTP: instantly, based on the stats of the units and leaders involved. See, this would be fine with me, except I just don't see it as being that seamless. If so, great. I just gotta see it first before I buy it.

borner -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/13/2008 2:45:50 AM)
If I could vote for one thing, it would be the air-to-air values of fighters. I am sure the powers that be have followed the UV thread about unrealistic air combats, and strongly hope those opinions are at least considered. As for those saying UV/CF is no WiTP. Thank god it isn't. While WiTP has several features i wish could be fitted into UV ( setting strike ranges for one), there is something to be said for having a game that takes 10 min instead of 2 hours to crank out a turn!

a1981stingray -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/28/2008 9:16:42 PM)
I would like to see in the Combat Results Summary some details about how the ships had taken damage, i.e. Critical Hit: Ammo Storage Explosion, Fuel Storage Explosion, Flooding, Deck Penetration, Severe Casualities, and all the stuff you read in the message display during combat. It would be really great to have during the write up of an AAR. If the combat results can keep track of the number of hits from bombs and torpedoes, then it should also be able to track the damage info too. In fact it would be nice to have a complete detailed combat report summary from everything that had appeared in the message display during that turn and maybe also at what hour, since tactical combat is now in 15 minute increments... It would also be great if the combat results summary automatically created a new text file for each turn. I am thinking how Midway played out with the planes on the deck being fueled and bombs and torpedoes scattered around with critical minutes passing by... This way the player does not have to take time out to copy and paste from the single combat results text file into a separate/personal text file. I guess I am thinking about all of the AARs I have been reading and the author just pasted the info in, but it doesn't really paint a picture of the action. There are some writers who are very descriptive in their reports and it really helps. I believe this would be an essential tool for players and writers. What do you think? Good idea?

Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/31/2008 8:05:13 AM)
The video resolution option of 800X600 in the game. No more Titanic Errors in Fonts like that in WITP.

RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/18/2008 2:09:58 PM)
allow dusk / night naval attacks for a/c. Especially japanese bombers did it IRL (Battle of Rennell for instance). Though you can set them for "night naval attack" in UV, I *never* saw it happen!

borner -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/18/2008 3:19:48 PM)
two things....... adjust the air-to air valus of fighters, something that has been discussed in several UV threads and on here... also, to pull from a current thread, TF's do not react by themselves if set not to. Yes, it is a nice feature, but not much is more fustrating to play a fame for months, and have everything go south for one side, as a carrier TF commander goes and does something stuipd... yes, in real life orders were not always followed, and you have the option to set a commander to react if that is your preferance, at least in UV, but I for one would greatly like to see this changed. It has caused headaches in many, many games I have played.

SuluSea -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/29/2008 12:26:28 PM)
As I was playing yesterday I was wondering how feasable it would be to get information on the Task Forces heading when aviation units spot it? I had another thought but will have to edit later when I remember it. [:o]

HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/29/2008 12:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea As�I was playing yesterday I�was wondering how feasable it would be �to get information on the Task Forces heading when aviation units spot it? I had another thought but will have to edit later when I remember it. [:o] Shouldn't be too difficult as they have already added that feature to WitP.

SuluSea -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/29/2008 12:39:10 PM)
Did not know that... Thanks Hans,[:)]

wworld7 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (10/29/2008 1:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea As�I was playing yesterday I�was wondering how feasable it would be �to get information on the Task Forces heading when aviation units spot it? I had another thought but will have to edit later when I remember it. [:o] Shouldn't be too difficult as they have already added that feature to WitP. Don't forget you are talking very different engines in these games. So it is not apples to apples.

borner -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (11/2/2008 4:27:37 AM)
Now there is an interesting concept. the Med with the UV type game system. The land combat may need to be improved a bit, but that would be really interesting

wworld7 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (11/2/2008 5:40:04 AM)
A War in the Med mod was done for WITP, but I never tried it. IMO, The land combat model is not really workable for such a theater.

RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (11/10/2008 7:18:26 AM)
another thing would be very helpful: If you split off some ships from a TF (Sc or Air for example) to have them conduct a temporary mission (maybe shelling a nearby airfield) they should be given the option to return to their parent TF next morning instead to a certain home port.

borner -> MATRIX PLEASE READ THIS (12/31/2008 3:07:54 AM)
Every carrier in the KB was here, cap at 50%,and this many strikes went out without escorts? Morale high, experience high, everything rested. A couple strikes get seperated from escorts? OK, Most of them? No. I have seen this before, from both sides, and IMO it takes away from the game. Yes, some random elements are cute and cause a challenge, but in UV there are too many times a force goes off on it's own, or a result like this happens that takes months of playing time and causes a terrible shift not due to mistakes of any of the players. It is worth noting that in this same game, , the US CV's reacted to the KB, and got slaughtered, loosing 4 for no loss. YEt another example of the game, rather than the players, deciding what happens. regards, and thank you for reading this. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/24/43 Weather: Overcast Sub attack at 34,42 Japanese Ships CL Isuzu DD Ayanami DD Minazuki DD Fumizuki Allied Ships SS Tautog, Shell hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack at 39,42 Japanese Ships AG 373, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships SS Seadragon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack at 39,42 Japanese Ships AG 5105, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships SS Seadragon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack at 36,43 Allied Ships SS Grayling -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack at 39,44 Japanese Ships CV Zuikaku Allied Ships SS Growler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 78 A6M3 Zero x 49 Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 18 Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 24 Allied aircraft P-38G Lightning x 77 B-17E Fortress x 80 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 7 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged A6M3 Zero x 4 destroyed Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 2 destroyed Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 1 damaged Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 2 destroyed Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 1 damaged J1N1-C Irving x 2 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses P-38G Lightning x 13 destroyed P-38G Lightning x 7 damaged B-17E Fortress x 2 destroyed B-17E Fortress x 13 damaged LCDR H.Inano of F2/2nd Daitai is credited with kill number 5 LT O.Banno of F2/252nd Daitai is KILLED Japanese ground losses: Men lost 744 Guns lost 2 Airbase hits 21 Runway hits 105 Attacking Level Bombers: 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 5 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 4 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 5 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 2 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 5 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 6 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 5 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet 3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 17 B5N Kate x 18 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 86 F4U-1 Corsair x 3 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 17 destroyed B5N Kate x 18 destroyed B5N Kate x 3 damaged 2LT L. Clark of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 24 B5N Kate x 16 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 86 F4U-1 Corsair x 1 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 22 destroyed D3A Val x 2 damaged B5N Kate x 17 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged FO V.Early of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 15 A6M3 Zero x 11 D3A Val x 3 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 84 F4U-1 Corsair x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed D3A Val x 2 destroyed D3A Val x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged F4U-1 Corsair x 1 destroyed LTJG F.Okura of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4 LTC H. Bauer of VMF-212 is KILLED Allied Ships CV Wasp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 35 A6M3 Zero x 5 D3A Val x 83 B5N Kate x 25 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 76 F4U-1 Corsair x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 19 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed D3A Val x 32 destroyed D3A Val x 35 damaged B5N Kate x 10 destroyed B5N Kate x 6 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged 2LT H. McCartney of VMF-121 is credited with kill number 6 MAJ L. Davis of VMF-121 is KILLED Allied Ships CLAA Oakland, Bomb hits 1 CLAA San Juan, Bomb hits 1 CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 9, on fire, heavy damage CVE Chenango, Bomb hits 3, on fire CVE Sangamon, Bomb hits 3, on fire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 17 D3A Val x 47 B5N Kate x 29 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 30 F4U-1 Corsair x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 6 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 8 destroyed D3A Val x 11 damaged B5N Kate x 8 destroyed B5N Kate x 5 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged FO V.Early of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 7 LTJG R.Matsuki of BII-1 Daitai is KILLED Allied Ships CVE Sangamon, Bomb hits 2, on fire CLAA San Juan CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 14, on fire, heavy damage CVE Chenango, Bomb hits 2, on fire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 8 B5N Kate x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 29 F4U-1 Corsair x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged LTJG T.Allison of VF-27 is credited with kill number 5 Allied Ships CVE Sangamon, on fire CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft B5N Kate x 20 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 63 F4U-1 Corsair x 12 Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate x 13 destroyed 2LT G. Loesch of VMF-121 is credited with kill number 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft B5N Kate x 30 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 63 F4U-1 Corsair x 12 Japanese aircraft losses B5N Kate x 16 destroyed B5N Kate x 12 damaged 2LT H. Bollman of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 5 Allied Ships CA Australia CL Nashville DD Monssen, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Achillies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 17 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 63 F4U-1 Corsair x 12 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 6 destroyed D3A Val x 13 damaged FO D.Clark of VMF-223 is credited with kill number 5 Allied Ships AK Allioth, Bomb hits 1, on fire AK Naos -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 32 A6M3 Zero x 13 B5N Kate x 22 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 40 F4U-1 Corsair x 3 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 12 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 7 destroyed B5N Kate x 6 destroyed B5N Kate x 6 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 8 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged F4U-1 Corsair x 1 destroyed 2LT L. Clark of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 8 2LT G. Loesch of VMF-121 is KILLED Allied Ships CV Wasp DD Cummings, Bomb hits 1, on fire CV Essex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 32 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 32 F4U-1 Corsair x 3 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 12 destroyed D3A Val x 8 damaged 2LT W. Watkins of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 8 Allied Ships CVE Sangamon, on fire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 12 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 32 F4U-1 Corsair x 12 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 3 destroyed D3A Val x 6 damaged 1LT A.Newman of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 7 Allied Ships DMS Hopkins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 4 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 32 F4U-1 Corsair x 12 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 1 destroyed 1LT H. Elwood of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF at 47,45 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 9 B5N Kate x 10 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 32 F4U-1 Corsair x 3 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 6 destroyed B5N Kate x 6 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged 1LT H. Elwood of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 8 Allied Ships CVE Suwannee, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

borner -> RE: MATRIX PLEASE READ THIS (12/31/2008 3:11:27 AM)
Another example, from another game, I am US this time... Air attack on TF, near Nevea at 50,43 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 24 D3A Val x 16 B5N Kate x 27 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 43 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed B5N Kate x 4 destroyed B5N Kate x 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged CPO E.Kotani of AII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 4 Allied Ships AP American Legion, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Titania AK Libra, Bomb hits 1, on fire AP Barnett, Bomb hits 1, on fire AK Alcyone AP George F. Elliot SC 638 AK Celeno AK Carina, Bomb hits 1 AP Zeilin, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air attack on TF, near Nevea at 50,43 Japanese aircraft D3A Val x 22 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 41 Japanese aircraft losses D3A Val x 19 destroyed D3A Val x 5 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged 1LT G. Poske of VMF-212 is credited with kill number 3

Rasputitsa -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (1/5/2009 6:33:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Personally, I have never been a huge fan of fighting out the tactical battles in a strategic game. Especially if thet tactical portion relies on my eye hand coordinaation for success. I don't want an arcade clickfest to determine the outcome of my strategy. Hopefully CF is going to be a new title and not just an addon to UV. I have the original Carrier Force (retitled Carrier Strike) from waaay back (1992) and I have a campaign running right now. I was expecting that the new CF will be the opposite of the above quote, in that it will be tactical battles, within a strategic element. Reportedly Gary Grigsby was inspired to start this title after reading 'Shattered Sword' and having just got the book, I am expecting task force and flight deck operations, with the strategic element to moderate and enhance tactical play. What you lose in one battle is not going to be there for the next one, additionally the operational/strategic environment sets the scene for each subsequent battle. Gary doesn't do arcade games and I am looking forward to CF with great anticipation. [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (1/5/2009 7:05:00 PM)
Head of the wish list for any new title is to have the micromanagement if it's available, but have functions and selected forces delegated to computer control when required. The transcipt of Hitler's bunker discussions have him considering where to put a handful of tanks, or a regiment of troops, as well as grand strategy. Maybe you may want to do this and if the game allows, then have that capability. However, as the AI can play the whole of the game for either side, it should also be capable of running any part of your play. You can concentrate on higher decisions and the game will play much faster. If the AI is making mistakes then you should be able to micromanage corrections, and pass functions back to the AI as you chose. There is nothing wrong with micromanagement as long as you can chose how much of it you want, this is how command structures work. Even GG's games of the 1990s allowed computer control of selected HQs, OK the AI was very primitive, but the idea was there. [:)]

RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (1/27/2009 9:31:49 AM)
maybe another thing would be nice: if one could assign particular escort fighters to particular bomber squadrons.

xj900uk -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (1/27/2009 12:19:07 PM)
The US tried it in the opening stages of WWII but it was never very successful, in the end they abandoned the tactic and went more for general cover. having every single squadron on a different radio frequency was another not-so-good idea that was abandoned just in time for the Guadacanal campaign

RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/5/2009 9:00:50 PM)
maybe discussed already, but want to bring this up here. What is some unrealistic (and unhistoric too) that ships can sink for good even in a large harbour. There should be some possibilty to save ships in ports of a certain size (say level 6) and/or to salvage stricken vessels at least to a degree that they can try to make it home. (maybe repair/reduce sys damage to a a max. value of about 90 and zero flood & fire) Either just by consuming supply or by attaching special "ship repair units" (land unit) to the respective base. Perhaps coincidence with the "tug" option mentioned before. It�s just ridicoulous that Betty�s from Rabaul can kill CA PENSACOLA at Townsville or B17s will destroy CV HIRYU at the Shortlands... To be exemplarily [;)] What do you think? [&:]

Mike Wood -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2009 10:19:04 AM)
Hello... 1) Problem is previous games was single experience factor for air crews. Each flight crew is now rated for dive bombing, level bombing, torpedo bombing, naval bombing (moving target), air to air combat, search missions and so on. This means B-17 crews may start at a good level of experience in level bombing stationary targets. Not so much, against ships. As the game progresses, the crew will get experience in what they do. So, if they seldom fly naval interdiction and bomb ships, they will not get much better at it. 2) Weather patterns moves more slowly in 15 minute terns than it does in a full one day turn, even in the unpredictable South Pacific. This is reflected in the game. 3) Each ship has ship crew experience, fatigue and disruption, flight deck experience and fatigue, a unique number of operations that can be done on that class of ship and maximum elevator operations per turn. Not too abstract. 4) Nice. May add. 5) Already added code I wrote for improved sub and ASW operations in War in the Pacific. Had to modify it a goodly bit, to account for 15 minute turns. 6) Not on my list. 7) Already added those. 9) Already added those. quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff I'd like to see 1) The accuracy of level bombers against ships reduced 2) Improved weather modeling that could allow a crafty player the chance of sneaking in or out under a front 3) Carrier ops for launching and recovering aircraft being modeled on a given ship's capabilities, not an abstract 4) Smoke from prior damage caused by bombing or bombardments partially obscuring a target 5) Improved ASW modeling 6) Preparation points for LCUs for given places (as in WITP & WPO) 7) Various speed settings for TFs (as in WITP & WPO) 8) More TF types (as in WITP & WPO) 9) More ships allowed in TF types (again as in WITP & WPO) ...and a partridge in a pear tree...

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953125