Ridicolous scenario design (for MP at least)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Charles Lamb
The IJN perhaps should HAVE to launch air strikes against land targets in some scenarios as a requirement of Victory, this is a suggestion , there may be other better ways of rebalancing for multiplayer but currently the IJN 'hold all the aces'.

Exactly - IJN has the upper hand in all scenarios because a) they know USN forces in advance; b) not only that, they also know WHERE USN forces start the scenario because there is NO variability in starting points; c) they don't have to bomb land installations - because in this game it's simply totally useless anyway. On some maps USN is also unable to retreat because maps are extremely confined - if the IJN player is willing to use (exploit) this to his advantage.

IJN has the advantage except in this most ridicolous scenario of them all - ie. Wake island, where the USN can easily win if they are ready to "Do The Yamato" and sacrifice all their CVs (+ aircraft + air crews) to strike down the AK Sh1tty Maru and AK Cr4ppy Maru - those two ober-important vessels. [8|]

Go figure [>:]

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You people need to playtest your stuff vs real living opponents.

[/quote]
It'd appear as though MP was a big part of whatever playtesting took place. Surely, you must realize that programmers don't normally play the games that they code, day-in and day-out. Somebodies must have been running MP for him to stabiity test it. I suspect, however, that it (stability testing) was the overarching focus of the effort. Similarly, it doesn't appear as though a whole lot of time was spent on regression testing of the game's core functions, some of which have been in gestation for twenty years.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design. The game does have it's strengths. The subject matter is quite compelling and the command scale is plausible enough. And SSG has managed to get a bunch of fairly complex interactions running in real-time, no mean achievement.

My real concern is an attitude that I've detected, "we sold a qazillion of these things, twenty-years ago, so don't go telling us how to do our job." Well, I don't think that myself or anyone else is seriously trying to do that. The game belongs to SSG. I do, however, wish that the developer would be a little more open-minded about introducing further design innovation into Carriers at War 2007.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design.

PoE I like your posts, as you seem to be "chatty" type of person which is nice [:D]

However you add very little substance to the thread - please be more flamey, say that the scenario design is fine for you so I can spill more bitterness in return [:D]

Seriously though, I doubt very much that this game can be changed into something longer lasting or usable for MP. For one I've seen no will from the part of the developers to do what has to be done (notice no dev replies in this thread).

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).

Oh well.... worse things have happened. Like, Pearl Harbor or Midway [:D]

[AVisme]

That strikes me as overly harsh.

I'd have to agree Oleg. I can appretiate your observations but have to state that in spite of the shortcommings I've still enjoyed my MP expierence sofar. I tend to try and look beyond the ludicrous results generated and try and focus on the immersion of the duel and at times the randomness of the spotting (and strikes) have had me in goosbumps

After a little exploring I've discovered it'll only take some minor tweaking to do away with some of the more outlandish conditions. Go a little deeper with the editor and you can modify the 42's to play less objective orientated and more focused on the future consequences of action.

And I would hope the 'flee the field' option would be an easy add for the first patch along with LRCAP

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

As it stands this game is a nice history learning tool, worth IMO 15 bucks, very limited and short-lived as single player game, and nearly useless for multiplayer.

That strikes me as overly harsh. The game needs polish, one aspect of which is some attention to scenario design.

PoE I like your posts, as you seem to be "chatty" type of person which is nice [:D]

However you add very little substance to the thread - please be more flamey, say that the scenario design is fine for you so I can spill more bitterness in return [:D]

Seriously though, I doubt very much that this game can be changed into something longer lasting or usable for MP. For one I've seen no will from the part of the developers to do what has to be done (notice no dev replies in this thread).

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).

Oh well.... worse things happened. Like, Pearl Harbor or Midway [:D]

Nothing like telling someone that their kid is "UGLY". [:-]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

MP is dying and will be dead in a week or two, I already unsubscribed from a Hamachi list I created myself. Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it. Fun while it lasts, but too short lived to be worth more than any budget title out there (15-20 bucks I say).

Yeah, play-balance is a necessity with multi-player. And you're not gonna get any sort of balance because the game's apparent strength in this regard is it's undoing. The game is about weapon systems, one element of which is pilots.

When you throw the affect of Allied intelligence out the window, and, likewise, fail to take into account differences in doctrine, it all comes down to a/c specs and pilot quality.

Playing the IJN, it's all about standing off and slaughtering an enemy that's too far away to strike back effectively. As the Allied player, you'll likely be reduced to hijinks like going after invasion transports to eke out a victory.

In conclusion, while hypothetical or modified scenarios could be employed to provide sufficient balance to this game, the historical scenarios are largely unsuitable for multiplayer because of the very nature of Carriers at War as published.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I don't care for one lost game - which I would never admit anyway, as I consider this result to be my Uber-Decisive Overwhelming Victory, no matter what you, Gregor_SSG, George W. Bush or Pope Benedict the Billionth have to say [8D]

What irritates me to no end is that developers (not just SSG but practically all developers) ignore wargamers who play vs other humans. Once you start playing and/or testing games vs other people terrible mistakes become apparent - either technical (unplayable or buggy MP as in so many games), absurd and downright ridicolous scenario design, never-tested setups etc etc etc. Sadly, this game is no better than the rest, even though I had hopes...... [:(] That's three scenarios already tagged as "unplayable in current state" by me, Pearl Harbor is well, it's not a REAL scenario, so we are left with grand total of TWO scenarios that may be usable for MP (as in - didn't find any logic-breakers there yet).

And hey, we MP fanatics usually never complain about the damn AI - that Nemesis of all developers everywhere....

There may be a way to take some of the sting out of this, Oleg.

Several years ago, I co-sponsored a single-elimination MP tournament with a developer. The scenarios were hypos created by the game's random scenario generator. But, there was a problem with the generator in that it tended to dish out battles that were wildly unbalanced. Because of this, the tournament results were clearly gonna be tilted in the direction of the player who drew the advantaged side.

The solution was simple enough. Two games were played per match with players alternating sides, and the winner was the player whose combined score for the two games was greatest . The winner advanced and the loser headed to the showers. We had thirty-plus participants and they really seemed to enjoy it (the developer and publisher threw in some nice prices, books and stuff). I see no reason why a similar format couldn't be adopted for CaW multi-player.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[AVisme]

Nothing like telling someone that their kid is "UGLY".

I feel bad, its like I pulled back the blanket... [;)]

[Charles Lamb]

This is a very positive discussion on the whole and some concensus seems to be emerging,

It is already possible to tweak the scenarios a little as AVism seems to be doing (I look forward to trying out some of your changes),
(although the ideal would be to arrive at some official and well tried Multi-player scenario's included with the game.)

Thoughts and Request:-
i) looking in the editor it would be VERY useful to be able to assign some destroy airfield/port conditionals (require a certain amount of damage to be inflicted to an airbase/s or port to achieve ?). At the moment there are currently only two conditionals available, supply/invade and preserve ship.
(Central to Midway, Wake, Guadalcanal and the Eastern Soloman's and New Guinea operations was the need/goal of putting airstrips out of action and currently the game does not recreate that except through the AI mission cards which are not applicable to multiplayer.)

This would be a way to make carrier commanders have to consider sending strikes against airbases to achieve victory...and it would also provide more purpose/choice for the land based bombers of both sides.

ii) The ability to retreat from the game map (or reworking much bigger maps for multiplayer).

iii) Variable starting positions would help replay value of multiplayer tremendously.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

- Wake Island - I just had a massive LOL. Whoever designed this needs to have his head examined.

Dude, you've got a few interesting points in that posting, but you should stick to the facts and you should strike the right note.

Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it.

Erm, no. I got the game like a bit more than a week ago, played all maps on both sides and I'm pretty much done with the game, as there's nothing left to explore (besides MP.. I haven't tried that, but after reading this thread I think I won't even tinker with it).

On Pearl, playing IJN, I sent in all support TGs (right into the harbor) completely ignoring Pearl's airbases, with my carrier group keeping a safe distance so that it wouldn't be spotted. Several full strikes on the anchored ships, PLUS the support groups attacking the remaining US TGs did the job, ALL ships (40) in the harbor sunk. That's as simple as it can get, regarding scenario design, game content/rules and historical accuracy.

I like the game's approach very much, but missing features, disturbing rule details (let alone the small number of scenarios) and the general lack of stuff in the content department keep me from loving the game. If there'll be one or 2 patches, along with some custom scenarios, I'll pick up the game again to see if it's going to be more challenging/thrilling.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It lies in the developer's stern-willed insistence that the USN and IJN fought these battles the same way. The fact of the matter is, though, that this was not the case.

Yep, definitely.
With an exception maybe, both forces believed that it was necessary to employ large battleships, although some of these ships had a hard time, due to aircrafts and submarines gaining effectiveness and speed significantly (during the course of the war).
Several "movements" within the USN tried to adjust parts of the Naval doctrine, since carrier forces proved to be way more effective.
The advocats of the BBs prevailed and managed to keep them, they even enforced the reactivation of several BBs after the war, although advanced technologies, which were used in new a/c types or submarines (i.e. anti-ship missiles, long-range homing torpedos), appeared to become vital threats during the following decades. Cruisers and frigates, employed as rocket-platforms, turned out to be more effective and carriers became the backbone/main arm within modern naval (non-nuclear) forces.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Single player dudes will play thru all scenarios and variants (some of which are laughable even for SP) by the end of the summer and that will be it.

Erm, no. I got the game like a bit more than a week ago, played all maps on both sides and I'm pretty much done with the game, as there's nothing left to explore

Yes I was insanely optimistic with "end of the summer" prediction. For us who bought the game 7-10 days ago, it's already getting old, nothing to do, nothing to explore, MP being a massive disappointment as I already described at length in this thread. I didn't want to be labelled "negativistic", nay sayer, hater or something, so I wrote "the end of the summer". However, the thought of playing this till the end of the summer would make me cry with desperation.....

I have nothing against games that are short on content or have low replay value. If that's the design decision or limitation then so be it. They should be budget priced though. 20 or 25 bucks for a week of fun is not bad at all, but 50 bucks for 6 scenarios with low replay value and useless MP..... leaves a sour aftertaste in one's mouth.

My main gripe, however, is moronic design for MP scenarios (or moronic design for scenarios, that becomes apparent in MP). This is perhaps the only part of the game where I feel seriously cheated and mislead by the hype/marketing.

[sullafelix]

I am so shocked and amazed at some attitudes toward this game. I'm almost thinking that we are playing different games. CAW since it's original appearance has been the standard for carrier warfare. The AI was always considered to be one of if not the best ever made. With all the discussion and postings about this game for over a year, what did some people think they were getting? maybe it's not some peoples cup of tea but to see it lambasted. Leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. In this age where you are lucky to get any content at all in a game beside idiotic flash.
 
What would you people think is a good multiplayer game? the few that I have played that are huge in MP are some of the most useless attempts at games I've ever seen. The few that I have played are just a rush to create a huge army and then do a tank rush and one side or the other is gone. No strategy no thinking, no nothing from my point of view. Do you guys like the multiplayer in HPS games? What wargames in your view have excellent MP? I'm not trying to be a smart*** I'm just really confused.

[Gregor_SSG]

It seems to me that what we stand accused of here is not designing MP scenarios exactly the way that some people want. We're almost certainly guilty of that, but lets step back just a moment and think about the crime.

Actually, before we do that, I'd like to get one thing of my chest. Although we don't make a song and dance about it, and plaster kangaroos all over the cover, SSG all live in Australia. That's on the other side of the world to most of our customers, so while you're typing, we may well be sleeping. It really annoys me when we get accused of virtual cowardice, and here I mean you, Oleg, when it's just the operation of some fundamental natural laws at play. I'm assuming that it's OK with you guys if we do sleep. I logged on yesterday morning, our time, and answered all post. I'm doing so now, (Sunday morning our time), and I think that's good enough.

Secondly, while we're at it, lets address the issue of tone. It is so very easy to get carried away, in an impersonal medium like this, and speak to people in a way that you would never do in real life. We must resist that temptation and keep things civil, otherwise we are all the worse off.

So to return to the main question. There are always diverging views on the approach to multiplayer games. Some people just want to replay historical situations with the AI replaced by a human player. For them, it's the historicity that is paramount. Other people want to emphasize the contest, and for them a level playing field is most important. While there will always be some tension between the two approaches, these things can be managed.

So lets examine what CAW has going for it. It has a stable and practical realtime multiplayer system. Let's think about that. Most wargames don't have realtime multiplayer at all. Many games (not just wargames) that provide multiplayer fail on the stable/practical part of the equation. If we hadn't spent our limited time and resources on creating that then this conversation wouldn't be happening at all.

So what can be done. As has been pointed out, issues with victory levels, can easily be changed in the Editor. Alternatively, you could just agree on some house rules to ignore victory conditions and just compare Victory Points to decide a multiplayer outcome. You could equally agree that if player announces that he's running for it, and that his naval forces will no longer conduct offensive operations, then those forces will not be pursued past a certain point.

Now I know that some people will say that we should have put in some sort of exit point. They're right, but as I said, we felt we had to concentrate on getting the fundamentals of multiplayer right. It is the sort of thing that we can add to a patch, and we will.

That brings me to my last point. SSG has a very long history of listening to its customers and improving and supporting its games. Carriers at War will be no different. People can contribute to the wishlist thread, or even start a separate multplayer wishlist, and we'll take all suggestions seriously and respond as we have already been doing.

Carriers at war is only just out. No game is ever perfect in all things to all people, but they can be made better. People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.

Gregor

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The AI was always considered to be one of if not the best ever made.

Do you mean best AI of all naval sims? If not, I'd have to disagree. The most thrilling, variable and complex AI I've seen was in the Airborne Assault engine, easily the best engine on the market (HttR and COTA), and Korsun is/was excellent too.

With all the discussion and postings about this game for over a year, what did some people think they were getting? maybe it's not some peoples cup of tea but to see it lambasted....

I've read some announcements/news and liked the approach when I read the specs for the retail version, but I didn't know/own the "ancient" original incarnation. Well, regarding ppl lambasting the game... whoever you've got in mind there, I do understand some of their statements and where they're coming from, as I'm somewhat disappointed myself. But let me quote Gregor:

ORIGINAL: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:27 pm by Gregor Whiley, SSG (Run 5 forums)

"Carriers at war fights a single battle, like Midway or Coral Sea, at a time and doesn't try to do entire campaigns like Uncommon Valour, it concentrates on the excitement and tension of a single engagement. There's plenty of that, so if you buy it you won't be disappointed."

Comments like these and SSG's superb reputation led to me buying the game. Unfortunately, I did not find "plenty of that", and, as a matter of fact, I am rather disappointed. Now, this might come down to personal taste or to ppl not wanting to wait for custom scenarios, but, despite the game's excellent general approach, it contains silly/weak spots (content/rules, etc.).

Ppl who are buying wargames (let's ignore personal tastes for a second) do expect historical accuracy (let's say for historic missions), quite some replay value, and/or a good basic package.... they'd be buying what we call more "commercial" products.... games for the masses, otherwise.
Many are picky, which makes it even harder for developers to survive in this niche-market. But that's where these devs use to be the most customer-friendly species, as they use to listen to their customers in order to make a good product even better, although they're already serving a niche-market.
This niche's extraordinary customer support keeps some ppl glued to one or another company, and I hope that this doesn't die.
But when ppl are criticizing products this might not necessarily mean that they're lambasting or vituperating, but that these ppl want to help to improve a product, to make it good or even better.

Ppl emitting constructive critizism should strike the right tone, though.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

In this age where you are lucky to get any content at all in a game beside idiotic flash.

And that's why I described the niche-devs' situation. In these forums, we are not talking about games for the masses, games where developers can get away with selling half-as*sed/unfinished + buggy software (with a massive amount of sloppy programming), as they turn over high volumes, but about wargames.
Customers in the wargaming sector aren't as easy as fans of the mass game sector, imo, they don't put up with everything, and I'm convinced that these wargame-devs are aware of it.
During all those yrs of gaming on the computer I've come across some wargamers who refrain from emitting constructive criticism in order to protect the sensitive "plants" -> the wargame developers. But, as a customer, I've got the right to say where I experience weaknesses or deficiencies within a given product, I think, be it a niche-game or a "mass-game".

Just to clarify, I'm not saying CAW contains a massive amount of bugs (I've experienced one bug only, and hmm.. 3 or 4 CTDs now). It's a solid product.

What would you people think is a good multiplayer game? the few that I have played that are huge in MP ...[]... that I have played are just a rush to create a huge army and then do a tank rush and one side or the other is gone. No strategy no thinking, no nothing from my point of view.

Well, this would be a perfect description for any RTS á la Command and Conquer, Starcraft or similar games (even Company of Heroes has a tiny bit more depth). It doesn't sound like a description of any of the excellent wargames/sims I've purchased during the last 18 yrs, well .... maybe Civilization had such features partially, along with those wargames where the player with the bigger stack of units uses to win a local battle.

What wargames in your view have excellent MP? I'm not trying to be a smart*** I'm just really confused.

Again, Airborne Assault. The problem with that series is that it's hard to find opponents, since there's no BattleHQ (central server) where ppl could meet, also, it's like a niche-game within a niche-market. The MP (of HttR/COTA) is excellent, nevertheless, and I have yet to find a more challenging game for MP. Bonus (and my personal fav): It's "pausable continous play" (dev statement) , but this makes it a niche-game within a niche.
Pausable real-time was another feature on the spec sheet which made me buy CAW, btw.

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.

Fair enough. How about releasing a demo to collect feedback prior to the release of a retail (or addon/sequel?)?

[sullafelix]

You are correct. What I meant to say was the best AI up until HTTR and Ageod's games. As far as content I have seen more than a few posts on other forums about people not buying the new CAW because they are still playing the old CAW and it has much more content. But, I believe given time and the internet as it is now. There will be much more content within six months compared to the first incarnation. As far as the lambasting I was always told you get more fly's with sugar than vinegar.
 
I myself was drooling when Battlefront was being released. Then through searching I found out that it would not have the AI abilities of for want of a better term the original Battlefronts. I was extremely disappointed. I still bought but I'm hoping their will be a rethinking and a patch that would add it back in. A company like SSG who released a wargame for free ( TAO ) not very long after it was on sale, plus the fact that they keep releasing better versions of it. Seems to me a company that will try to fufill buyers wishes and comments.

[Oleg Mastruko]

So to return to the main question. There are always diverging views on the approach to multiplayer games.

I appreciate your post even though I don't find it very encouraging. It's obvious scenario testing in MP was very lacking to put it mildly. It's hard for me to convey how disappointed I am with CAW MP, or MP in wargames in general. In FPS games we have a whole subgenre of online-only FPS games, designed to be played exclusively in MP, and this genre is already bursting with quality titles plus new ones are being developed and released on a monthly basis. Kiddy RTS, same thing - tons of quality MP titles. Developing even a primarily single player game without quality MP subsystem, specialized MP maps and whatnot is considered suicide in those genres.

In serious wargaming - yeah I know it's a niche genre and all - we have developers constantly ignore all forms of human vs human play (H2H), perhaps including it as an afterthought, implementing it badly, never testing scenarios in H2H etc. Turn based wargames include PBEM, but usually only with very basic of options, no encription, no security, sometimes not even a basic stuff like turn replay (see recent posts on CEAW board) and are reluctant to do any improvements to PBEM thru patches, as they consider it a waste of time and energy since "most players play solitaire anyway", which is not always true but is repeated like a mantra. I don't know the SSG's track record regarding PBEM, so I *might* have been wrong to use this thread and this game to spill the accumulated bitterness over MP for the whole genre, but hey, if that's the only thing I did wrong, I am guilty as charged, no regrets.

When I saw CAW I thought "wow this is going to be SO different". My enthusiasm for CAW MP shows in like half a dozen threads I opened etc. To cut this not very long story even shorter - current MP with current scenarios on current maps is crap. Sorry mate it's crap, period.

Had you tested ES, SC or Wake scenarios for like twice vs human terrible shortcomings I listed would become very obvious. Of course, AI is too "honorable" to sacrifice CVs to launch on transports while threatened by enemy CVs in Wake scenario, but that's exactly what a sneaky human would do, knowing that sinking two rusty Marus will bring him decisive victory, regardless of lost CVs. Your "honorable" AI might retreat when damaged, but "crazy" human will be ready to sacrifice CVs to get the Marus if Marus, in your ridicolous scenario design, mean victory. Being cornered on the open ocean etc. - again your honorable AI might be programmed to stop at the lattitude of Lunga and never pursue, but a human will pursue (after all it's the smart thing to do).

I am using "honorable" to describe the AI while I really mean to say "stupid" or "very limited". I did play vs AI and I cannot for the life of me understand those raising the AI to heavens. It's very very limited and usually timid. AI rarely or never transfers squadrons to forward airfields (something a human player will do in the first milisecond). AI never forms large groups to share CAP. AI never uses baits and ambushes. Sure, a full IJN CV TF strike will obliterate USN player's force but that's not exactly because of fantastic AI, that's because IJN aircraft and pilots are modelled as uber elite, and victory requirements are ridicolous. Playing as uber-Japs I can beat the USN AI in this game blindfolded and drunk. But hey no complaints from me regarding the AI because I expect the AI to be crap that's why usually the only thing I care for in games is H2H anyway. AI works for AI dudes which is fine. MP does NOT work for MP dudes like me which is NOT fine.

I do feel I was led to believe CAW MP will be worthwhile, but it simply isn't, and I don't think it will ever be. And it irritates me to see the full price tag on a game that interests me primarily for MP, and implements the said MP badly.

It has a stable and practical realtime multiplayer system.

Not really "stable" now that YOU mentioned it. I had numerous crashes and slowdowns - all reported thru your Debug tool BTW, and some reported here on the board as well.

Carriers at war is only just out. No game is ever perfect in all things to all people, but they can be made better. People can choose to work with us to improve it, or not, as they see fit.

Nice propaganda mate but it rarely works like that. We'll see, I am ready to wait while playing other games (hey nothing better to do anyway) but I remain suspicious. I learned thru experience - whenever a developer or publisher gets to the "you can edit it in editor" argument you know there is something wrong with the system and it will never be corrected by the "you can edit it in the editor" guys. There's one even worse argument "use house rules". Perhaps I might in enormously huge monster like WITP, but here, what, because you made maps ridicolously small?

I did try to use house rules, and had the guy laugh at me when I asked him not to pursue my USN forces if I decide to retreat to south on the miniscule Santa Cruz map.... Know how this game ended? My damaged USN TFs did a full circle and retreated towards **NORTH** and NE thru that channel in between Rabaul and Buka!! I was running full steam towards Kwajalein when the scenario ended. Nowhere to go nowhere to hide.... [8|]

[Scott_WAR]

I have to agree with Oleg here. ALL games are slowly starting to be more MP balanced,....... because they have to be. VERY few games that are not MP capable, no change that, very few games that dont have a GOOD MP component sell well any more. Its called the internet, and it has become popular over the last few years. Any company that is foolish enough to think that the internet isnt an important part of a game now deserves to fold and go out of business.

I havent tried carriers at war in MP yet, but from playng many MP games, wargames included, and from what I see being described here, it looks as if CaW is in serious trouble. I was very concerened about the extremely small number of scenarios when I first fired up CaW, but figured MP would be its saving grace. Obviously it isnt, and now I wonder if the game will last at all, and have to really question the cost of the game considering how little game there actually is.


Then there is the question of future updates to the game. As Oleg stated, any time I hear a developer mention "it can be fixed with the editor" I know with almost 99% accuracy that the developer isnt planning oin fixing anything, but instead consider the inclusion of an editor as the ultimate patch. I hope that isnt the case here, becasue that isnt true. If the game is going to prosper or fail based on MP, then the MP scenarios must be "OFFICIAL" before they will be used by the majority.

Honestly, the words "house rules" and "it can be fixed with the editor" to me mean, "we are done spending time and money on this, you have the tools available......you fix it..... thanks for the money".

Right now I am optimistic though, Matrix has too good of a name as far as support and updating games to allow this to ruin its reputation.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Right now I am optimistic though, Matrix has too good of a name as far as support and updating games to allow this to ruin its reputation.

Well, yeah, but you do know that Matrix is the distributor, not the developer, in this case, right? .

[Scott_WAR]

Oh yeah, but if a company wants to continue using Matrix as a publisher, they should be required live up to a certain standard of support.