Coral Sea - CAW vs UV a Quick Comparison

[Adam Parker]

I've owned Uncommon Valor since release but have actually never played a scenario with it, I think mainly due to the mechanics of convoying that never really clicked with me due to lack of concentration.

However, now owning Carriers at War I thought it would be interesting to fire up the old UV and compare outcomes/experiences using the Coral Sea scenarios as litmus. And I couldn't have done this without CaW first teaching me the essence of the campaign and the OOB's I'd be managing and facing. Here's my opinions:

Basically, the Coral Sea scenarios of the two games are very similar in objective. They are short and to the point. In both the Japanese are required to invade New Guinea (at Gili Gili in UV and Port Moresby in CaW). In both, players are rewarded for neutralising their carrier opposition.

1. Maneuver - Very similar between the games. Click areas of the map you wish to hunt in and await the enemy. In CaW there is actually more moving around, more shifting of position. This could be a factor of the WEGO pausable clock, with UV being turn based.

2. Spotting - I couldn't work out how to set up air searches in UV but the coastal observer network did its job automatically and with good effect spotting the Jap carriers for me. CaW appears to have a much more dynamic search routine and due to WEGO is more tension building.

3. Air combat - Here UV really shines. Combat is very similar between the games, on screen, with both using a 2d top-down "battle board" of sorts. But the action in UV really gets the heart going and the throat cheering. Bombing and torp hits are rewarded with emotion-building info (much like an old session at AH's Tobruk) such as "Belt Armor Penetration", "Penetration Below Deck", "Fuel Tank Hit", "Heavy Damage" and "Critical Hit!". CaW could really use something like this even with FoW feedback on. Further, in UV there's no giving away the result before the animations have ended. Cool stuff. Very interestingly, in UV the system launched my strikes automatically for me. All I did was move within range and boom! Of my Dauntlesses flew - thankfully with good results. But I had moved too close as I was to find immediately after.

4. Invasion - In this scenario, UV really put the emphasis on invading New Guinea. Even with the loss of Shokaku and Zuikaku the invasion still went ahead. This differs from my experiences with CaW as given such results, the AI usually flees the field. This could have something to do with the focus of UV on transports, convoys and surface task groups. But it was interesting to see. Yet, is it ahistorical?

5. Outcome - Well I lost the Yorktown and Lexington. The latter to Japanese air and the former to air and a Japanese sub. The Japs lost the Shokaku and the Zuikaku was mauled. However, if I've interpreted the results right, the Japs still won a marginal victory due to their successful invasion. In CaW such a result would also be an Axis Marginal Win. However, as mentioned, because of the tendency of the Jap AI to turn coward in CaW, an Allied Marginal Win would normally result.

Summary - It may be because I know UV less well than CaW but I was honestly left with the impression that CaW, due to the WEGO mechanics, actually gave me more to do and more "tactical" control over my forces. This totally surprised me because after many losses I was forming the opinion that in CaW, unless I was lucky, a game would end very quickly and I wasn't able to do enough.

Other than the excitement level of UV's combat reports, I actually feel that there's more excitement to be had with CaW. In UV the system did my fighting, in CaW I'm now left with the impression that I do. And that's quite strange, because in reality, all we do in CaW is click squadron icons and launch.

I think this is part and parcel with of fact, that SSG has done a better job in its interface and in helping the player manage/monitor his OOB during the game. It's very easy to see at a glance in CaW what's afloat, what's perilous and what's lost on your side.

All in all I'm really glad I ran this exercize. Yes, UV and more so WitP, will be great games the more CaW teaches me of the era and the more curious I become to fight the logistics war. But in this comparative scenario where maneuver and fighting are the essence, CaW left me feeling much more in command of the CiC, than did UV with its breathtaking map.

A humble .02,
Adam.

Edit: Fixed some typos...

[LarryP]

Adam;

(Off topic here but we have the same last name). OK. I own UV, WitP, and WPO and I have played all three a lot. However, I never had the excitment like I do with CAW. Those three games for me are so dry, and WitP is still full of bugs and I seem to have a propensity to find them each time I play it. It also has a "hate you if you find fault with it" following. I never will understand that about gaming. I'm getting off topic again.

I enjoyed reading your comparison. Sometimes I think it would be nice to adjust the Task Groups in CAW like we can in UV. Add ships, drop ships, tell the group what to when they get where they are going. However, the situation can also drastically change in a moment when there is a sighting. So the developers may have found the right mix of user interaction no matter what I want added or changed. Every time I play it I am on the edge of my chair soon after. That tells me a lot about this game. UV never did that to me. I DO like the music in UV, WPO, and WitP, especially that flute song. I turn my systems sound up when that plays. My wife loves that song too. The piano is good in CAW and adds a different touch. I get so tired of all the music crammed into the movies we watch, and it's so bad at times that I think the story must be lacking for them to have to do that so much.

I think the best thing that could happen to CAW is to add more scenarios.

[HobbesACW]

My wife also! We need more games with wife friendly music.

[elmo3]

Was thinking of reloading UV and patching it just last night. Thanks for the comparison Adam.

[Adam Parker]

Hi Larry, if I can trace my family tree at all I think I'm decendant from peasants who looked after the horses of the peasants that had them. But they weren't gamers like us [:D]

Totally agree with you. It would be nice to experiment with doctrine other than invoking the editor. And definitely more scenarios please.

What do you think of either a random scenario generator or a random option within each scenario?

Vs the AI balance is good to have but in this arena, I think the unknown, is even more so.

For those with a good memory (I'm happily only part so) they'll always know the TG's a carrier will be found in merely by the TG's composition in a spotting report, after the first play.

[Adam Parker]

Cheers E3 [;)]

[carnifex]

My quick UV - CAW comparison:

UV - Give lots and lots of complex orders. Click "End Turn" and see what happens.  Maybe the planes will fly or maybe they won't.  Maybe they'll target the "right" TF or maybe they won't.  It's out of your hands.

CAW - Set course and speed. Click the LAUNCH button when the time is right. 

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Hi Larry, if I can trace my family tree at all I think I'm decendant from peasants who looked after the horses of the peasants that had them. But they weren't gamers like us [:D]

Totally agree with you. It would be nice to experiment with doctrine other than invoking the editor. And definitely more scenarios please.

What do you think of either a random scenario generator or a random option within each scenario?

Vs the AI balance is good to have but in this arena, I think the unknown, is even more so.

For those with a good memory (I'm happily only part so) they'll always know the TG's a carrier will be found in merely by the TG's composition in a spotting report, after the first play.

That's good you know some about your family tree (unless you were teasing). I don't. I have access but I have not looked. I've just never gotten into that but some of my family sure has. You live down under, I live up and over. [;)]

I think that a random option within each scenario to further customize the scenario would be great. That feature is in other war games I have and I really enjoy being able to customize the game for my mood. Call it a PMS function within the scenario! Programmable Mood Scenario. Kidding.

[Warfare1]

It's somewhat difficult to compare CAW with UV and WiTP.

CAW is like a 100 yard sprinter.

UV and WiTP are like long distance marathon runners.

CAW spans a few days involving carriers.

UV and WiTP span many months and years involving complex operations involving troop, supply and fuel convoys; complex carrier operations; endless surface fleet actions; forming and reforming TFs of various types; submarine actions; mine laying operations; numerous beach and land invasions; multiple bombing missions involving huge formations of bombers such as the Flying Fortress; endless fighter confrontations and pilot rotations; and all wrapped up in a series of TF commands that require study to learn well.....; etc, etc....

CAW is enjoyable for a quick, satisfying game; UV and WiTP require long term planning and commitment for a period of many days and weeks.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
UV and WiTP require long term planning and commitment for a period of many days and weeks.

Years.

[Desertmole]

Guys,
 
I have played CaW in its earlier incarnations, all the way back to 1985 for my C-64.  It was always a great game, and CCaW (Complete Carriers at War) was excellent and included a Scenario Editor that was not for the faint hearted.
 
The biggest diffference between UV and CaW is the focus of the game.  In UV (and its bigger brothers) you are an operational commander.  You work the big picture (picture Halsey when he was SOPAC).  In CaW you are a tactical commander, and can order the TFs and air units directly.
 
Both are great games.  Remember, too, that UV had, as its genesis, the old Great Naval Battles Series.  The big difference was that there you could command down to the individual gun mount.  Neat games but crappy AI by modern standards.  Still, what was done with the limitations of computers and software in those days was something else.  One thing never created elsewhere was the damage control mode.  It was a real challenge to save a vessel that the AI would write off.  The long campaign in GNB II was one of my favorites.

[JungleJim99]

OFF TOPIC - Carson City! I will be there over the 4th of July week visiting my parents (well, actually Dayton, but I will have to pass through Carson to get there....[:'(] ). Boy has that whole area grow lots in the last few years!

ON TOPIC - I have never felt the need to try other CAW-type games because I never found myself wishing there was something else that CAW would do (other than be a little nicer to me and let me win once in a while [;)]).

[&o] CAW FOREVER [&o]

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: JungleJim99

OFF TOPIC - Carson City! I will be there over the 4th of July week visiting my parents (well, actually Dayton, but I will have to pass through Carson to get there....[:'(] ). Boy has that whole area grow lots in the last few years!

It was 96 degrees here today. Dayton Valley has really grown in the last five years. Unreal. That used to be considered the pit of the area and now it has tons of homes, stores, and tract housing.