|
Unhappy -> CAW postmortem (4/23/2009 5:20:02 AM)
|
I think we are a little shy of the two year anniversary of the new CAW (Came out June 8, 2007). I acquired it on the first day it was out. I was unhappy with the game (thus my uh ... handle ... name ... whatever). However, I did stick with it for a while and must say I derived quite a bit of enjoyment from the editor until I got bored of that as well (over a year ago now). Anyhoo, I would like to conduct a postmortem on this game; what worked, what didn't, what should it have been, etc. I suspect that the Matrix and SSG folks wont like the thread and argue that they are still making sales and people are still playing and enjoying it but... come on, the game fizzled out - lets face it. Although, SSG (especially Alexs) were quite responsive to enquiries and suggestions (and put out several patches) I can't help but think that CAW never attained its potential. So here is my 5 cents.
1. Too true to the original. The original CAW may have been a favourite back in the 1990s or whenever the heck it came out (never played it) but just adding new graphics and some additional features without substantially overhauling the game mechanics was a mistake. What was cutting edge in PC game infancy was inadequate for 2007.
2. The lack of a dynamic campaign was a real letdown. Linked scenarios would have added a great deal to this game, forcing the player to husband resources and decide where they wanted to commit their ships.
3. Further to #2, the ability to repair ships (added later on) and, especially, refurbish or replace carrier squadrons and land based squadrons would have added tremendously to the game.
4. The actions permitted by the warcards were too limited, again, they may have been great in the 1990s but did not provide enough options for a 'modern' game. I feel that the AI was weak, and I think the stats on the SSG website bear that conclusion out.
5. Air to air combat was too abstracted, players couldn't 'see' what was going on. This was especially noticeable in attacks on land targets where the player was only presented with summaries.
6. I think that the game could have benefited from Matrix or SSG offering a central online repository of player created ships and aircraft, and national flags, maps etc.
7. The argument that CAW was a 'tactical' game - a scenario game - and that it did not lend itself to a strategic, entire pacific, entire war game. This relates to #2 and is my biggest beef with the game. Yes, the game is played in 5 minute increments. But most of the time is spent moving around and not engaged with the enemy. Despite occurring in 5 minute increments it plays MUCH faster that WITP and I think it could have, should have, encompassed the entire war in the pacific. Obviously, a lot of things would be more abstracted that WITP, like land combat and resupply, but it could have been a great simulation of the naval war in the pacific on a strategic scale.
8. OK... I'm now too drunk to continue this post. Oh, there should have been a means to have squadrons progress in experience between scenarios. Also, having spent considerable time looking at scenarios etc. all the means to make submarines player controlled is built into the game but not used in any of the supplied scenarios. Again, an unfortunate decision.
In closing, there are a lot of good things about this game but on the whole, it was disappointing (in my opinion). Don't know if anyone will bother to add to this thread but I hope you do, because I think SSG/Matrix was close to having a great game with CAW but it just came up a little short.
|
|
|
|
