CAW 1992 manual is very useful

[Al Boone]

I pulled out my CAW, CAW Construction Set and CAW II, dating back to 1992, in order to fill in more information which is missing from the new CAW game manual. The CAW (1992) manual confirms the 10 squadron landbase limit. They also make references to the incurrence of greater operational losses when large bombers (eg B-17s) are used out of small airfields. This game is great, but like many other similar Matrix games, you play many times before you learn important restrictions and rules. I think that this is crap. Why should I have to sit for an hour trying to figure out why my 11th squadron will not transfer to Henderson? Why do I not get some sense from the rules that a "large all weather" airfield is important to keep B-17 losses down? (of course it now makes sense why I lost so many B-17s in the Coral Sea scene when I operated out of PM). Why won't some PBY squadrons transfer? Does airfield size apply to B-25 and B-26 operational losses as well? Is a medium all weather airfield adequate to maintain reasonable operational losses on medium bombers? What airfield size is adequate for reasonable Beaufort operational losses? Can I transfer squadrons between Theatres(eg Kenny to Fitch)? This info that should be available in some degree to each commander so that he can make value judgements about the effects of making certain moves. ALL THE GAME PARAMETERS SHOULD BE KNOWN TO THE PLAYERS! What is the gaming value of having various size airfields if the player doesn't know the implications for the game? I think that we are getting some replacement aircraft in some scenes, but there is insufficient info for any command judgements to made by a player. It's like playing Chess in the dark. I am sure someone might say that it is intuitive, but I disagree, since the player doesn't know the programmer's intent or what is included and/or just "eye candy". What other info is missing that could help enrich this game and create new strategies and command depth? Incidently, the "old" CAW 1992 rules manual, development notes and actual background history are really excellent and good reading on their own merits. I have to say that the new CAW game manual is very deficient on important game data, which makes it more difficult and frustrating to play, but also inhibits some great gameplaying decision making.

[jazman]

I agree, a more detailed manual is a must.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: jazman

I agree, a more detailed manual is a must.

Color printer cartridge depleted... printer a smoking ruin... (just printed the UV rules too) [:D]

You guys are gonna make me cry

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Al Boone
It's like playing Chess in the dark.

War *IS* like playing chess in the dark, especially naval warfare.

[Al Boone]

Your comment is "cute", but not very helpful and is a distraction from the central issue. To have become a commander in the first place, the player should know PM's squadron capacity and thru "experience" (the rules data), he should have enough information to make a game judgement whether it is worth the increased operational losse to transfer a B-17 squadron to the PM "medium all weather" airfield, in order to strike IJN TFs closer to Rabaul. A commander can also factor in a greater range of TF speeds if he knows that he can refuel and knows the "game method" of doing it. I agree with your comment, but it clouds the real issue here.

[MarkShot]

Any way to get those old docs via PDF?

[Johnus]

Oleg:

Assuming that photo of you is untouched, you are hands down the most convincing transvestite I have ever seen. You should establish a site to pass on your secrets.

[Staggerwing]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Oleg:

Assuming that photo of you is untouched, you are hands down the most convincing transvestite I have ever seen. You should establish a site to pass on your secrets.

That's just one of his trophy wives...

[Oleg Mastruko]

LOL you guys are funny [:D]
 
However the truth is that Adele Stephens (the girl on my avatar pic) is known for being "untouched" - by surgical knife at least [:D] LOL [;)]
 
(Huge natural breasts for those who are too dense to take a hint. Unfortunatelly my avatar does not show too much, we want to keep MG site family friendly don't we? [:D]) 

[Brigz]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

LOL you guys are funny [:D]

However the truth is that Adele Stephens (the girl on my avatar pic) is known for being "untouched" - by surgical knife at least [:D] LOL [;)]

(Huge natural breasts for those who are too dense to take a hint. Unfortunatelly my avatar does not show too much, we want to keep MG site family friendly don't we? [:D]) 

Here you go guys: deleted
Now you can see what Oleg is talking about.[X(]

Edited note: On second thought, maybe you should just do a search for Adele Stephens and see for yourself. I forgot that this is a family oriented site.[:-]

[Al Boone]

Anyone here have any serious interest in CAW?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Anyone here have any serious interest in CAW?

No, you're the only man on this board - perhaps in the whole universe - with a serious interest in that game [8|]

[Al Boone]

oleg & dave,
I apologize for sticking my nose in your dialogue with my useless drivel ........

[Brigz]

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

oleg & dave,
I apologize for sticking my nose in your dialogue with my useless drivel ........

Wow Al, you take your forum postings pretty seriously. Most of us that have been posting here for a long time are a very casual group and it's easy for us to get distracted. We like to discuss games and what-not but we also like to have fun too. I'll try to remember to mind my manners if I post on any future threads you start.

Having said that, I agree with what you said about the manual and posted something about the original CCAW manual on another thread. It does appear that the older manual is indeed more useful than the current one. I'm trying desperately to find my copy of the original CCAW so I can check out the manual. Unfortunately I have know idea where I've stored it. If I can't find it I'm considering buying another copy of CCAW just to get the manual. But one thing I can say about the new version of CAW is that it's an excellent upgrade of the older game. I like it.

[MarkShot]

Well, I got CCAW on order. So, I'll let you know how the manual's compare.

Yep, maybe I can look at buying CCAW as purchasing a strategy guide with software included.

Besides liking older games (better game play and software quality than today's new releases), the manuals were generally better done for the games of the early to mid-1990s than those release 2000 and beyond.