Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

very interested in this game but after reading this thread i just have one question. will this game be a rusty ford pinto with a new paintjob or is it actually a remake that is improved in every way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

AP514

You then went on to say:
What a great suggestion Setting your TF's Course before launch and or a Big VP loss
for A/C that "DITCH".
That’s good, it’s constructive and helpful but the SSG team has pointed out the difficulties.
I do some voluntary work for a small wargame developer (not SSG) and until you do that it is impossible to imagine what struggles they go through to decide what’s to be in and what’s too difficult, too time consuming, too expensive to be put in
So your saying you KNOW what they think. An Idea to improve on the original is too time consuming, too expensive to be put in. Your a on the STAFF or a TESTER.........

You then come up with the killer line:
Do not get me wrong I love/Loved CAW. I just can't see paying $40-$50 for the new version
$40-$50 is too much for a game you “love” ( and for a version that no one has seen)!
Yes, if it is going to have the same problems that made me remove it from my computer all of those years ago. SEE GAMEY Below

Of course I know nothing about your personal circumstances, but if that is too much for “a game you love” send me your address and I will pay for it for you.
Ya Right

Stop slagging it off BEFORE you have a chance to see it. See GAMEY below

GAMEY
The reason for Deal Breaker is that in Multiplay people are GAMEY. If I am the Jap player I will split off my screening forces into 3-4 groups plus other surface groups and head after your Carriers. While your strikes are flying to hit my carriers your "ON STATION". Or even a small strike against one of my surface groups your "ON STATION". All the while my surface groups close in on your Carriers. Also my own Carriers maybe strikeing at you. At the end of the Day my Surface groups have made contact Because you have been "ON STATION" and your CARRIERS are TOAST
I did this TACTIC so often in the original game I lost interest

So after the killer line “deal breaker” you then decided to be more measured:
My Quote "To be fair I will wait until some reviews are in after the game is released" Great.

But then, off you go again:
the "On Station" feature is too great of a compromise on what would be a pretty darn good game.
Need I say more?
You will
As for the above Quote your so into Ripp'n every poster that you don't agree with that you have pulled this one from another reply. DHOooo....

It's just a shame that the internet has made people feel they can say things to others in a way they wouldn't dream of doing if they met in a pub.
Practice what you Preach


AP514
The Best WATERLOO player ever





< Message edited by AP514 -- 1/6/2007 4:37:14 AM >

(in reply to RayWolfe)

quote:

Just a few points in reply to the posts made here. Firstly, we do try to read every post, though its usually not possible to respond in detail to every single one.

As to the question of what the carriers do when launching a strike, I'd like to make the following points.

Carriers are considered to be 'on station' in a hex steaming at cruising speed while waiting for strike recovery - they are not anchored at zero knots.

Carriers are considered to be manouvering at flank speed whenever under air attack, for the purpose of dodging bombs and torpedoes.

The fact that the formation is in a single hex is no advantage at all for the purpose of launching airstrikes or intercepting with surface groups, since you never deal with the real location of enemy ships, only a sighting report which is inherently variable. You have the same chance of your strike finding a Task Group steaming a set course as one that is 'on station'. So while you know that a TG is in the same hex, the routines that handle sightings and strikes don't.

It is true that if your surface TG is in the same hex as an enemy TG then there a chance for repeated surface contacts. However this is very hard to achieve. You might manage it at night, but sightings decay at night and carriers are unlikely to still be on station recovering strikes at night. You can try during the day, but its hard to get a surface group close to enemy carriers without being sighted and sunk long before you can even think about surface combat. The Japanese did manage this at Leyte Gulf, (by the deliberate sacrifice of their fleet carriers as decoys) but their surface group, despite overwhelming force and being opposed only by a bunch of escort carriers, found the experience so disagreeable that at one stage they retired in confusion and were able to sink exactly one US carrier with gunfire.

In all our years of making games, we have stuck to some basic principles and some of them are very relevant here. In summary, they include:

1. Game first, simulation second. It doesn’t matter how realistic it is, if a game is too hard or not fun to play, people just won’t play it.
2. No game should try to do everything, otherwise it will fall foul of Rule 1 and be too hard to play. This means that we abstract some game elements in order to focus on those that are, (in our judgement) both important and fun.
3. No player wants to do everything but different players will want to do different things. In other words, you can’t please everybody and in trying you’ll probably end up pleasing nobody.
4. You cannot just ask players to ‘do the right thing’ (more on this later).

Carriers at War is not a super tactical game. We don’t want you having to turn your carriers into the wind, micro-manage deck operations or do complex navigation. Your job is at a higher level which involves making tough decisions on incomplete information, not counting deck spots.

On that last point, Carriers at War is already a highly successful game, with its various versions winning multiple awards and selling around 150,000 copies. We’re confident that, even if it doesn’t happen to handle all the details the way you would like, it is such an exciting and fun to play game that you won’t regret its purchase.

Now to the delicate issue of player behaviour. Ian Trout, designer of Carriers at War, has reminded me that the main reason for the ‘on station’ rule is to prevent players from launching a raid and then simply running away from any retribution or mutual strikes. The player would lose their planes, but quite possibly preserve their carriers while sinking the opposition force. With reference to Rule 4 above, we know that it is futile, especially in a multi-player game, to ask players to refrain from exploiting the game system. If an exploit is possible, they will use it while blaming us and simultaneously demanding that we stop it. So we’ve stopped it. Ian reports that the impromptu kamikaze tactic was a favourite in the old board game Flat Top, which had no mechanism to prevent it.

So there you have a full and frank explanation of the mechanism. I’m sure that people will have further ideas and we’ll listen to everything. I would remind people though that we are close to finishing the game, and we are not in a position to make big changes to the current game system.


Gregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

so what youre saying is - its probably actually something that is real, but because your on line opponents will exploit it, you dont think it should be in the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

i have wondered the same thing!!! its alright to complain that a feature of the game means you wont buy it - but in real life, DID commanders launch and then move?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro

FroonP: How did the aircraft find the carrier on return if it wasn't in the (roughly) same position?

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley: