CAW's biggest improvements?

[MarkShot]

I have been playing CCAW and will probably flip back to CAW soon. Here are what I think the biggest improvements are with the new CAW:

(1) Multi-player (although I don't personally)

(2) A flexible scrollable/zoomable map. The map in CCAW is okay when forces are widely separated, but as you know, you reach a point where forces are separated by 200nm, 300nm, 400nm, ... There is a world of difference between these distances and what it means for the strike package. With CCAW, it all simply looks close even on a big 20" CRT. With CAW, you can do those types of separations graphic justice.

(3) Better map definition meaning that you have text labels and other context information is easily at hand in CAW. For true grogs, this probably makes no difference. But for those who only know the PTO in a cursory sense, the CCAW scenario briefings and the map display does not really connect. Besides issuing bogus/temporary commands just to get map points identified to me, I also needed to hunt for maps on the Internet so that I could get a better understanding of what the low definition map was representing.

(4) The event log. CCAW captures the current state of map objects quite well. In some regards, it is perhaps more informational (report like) than CAW. However, with CCAW if the history of the battle is important to you (what and when), then you have to keep your own command log on the side. CAW does this automatically for you. In fact, if this feature was somewhat enhanced, it would be an AAR writers dream and a good basis for a basic replay facility.

The above are all obvious improvements. It will take much greater exposure to both to comment on anything under the hood.

I was commenting to a friend that I find the two games subtly different in their feel to play, but hard to exactly pin down:

I just wanted to let you go that I received my physical shipment of CAW from Matrix yesterday. I am having a lot of fun with CAW and CCAW. At the moment, I am playing CCAW, but intend to go back CAW when the next patch comes out.

In comparing the two games, I can see that you folks very faithfully recreated the original which is very hard when working under a different OS/UI/programming environment. On the other hand, the feel of the game is subtly different, but it is hard to explain. Perhaps, it is CAW's large ever present map and the pop-up controls. In CAW, the big picture is constantly before you. In CCAW, the operational steps and issues are more of a focus as they take center stage quite often. I am not sure if you'll get what I mean. Perhaps, some of it comes through in the screens I posted. I am not saying whether it is good or bad, but it is just different. (Although it may make learning the system easier with CCAW.)

Well, I am curious as to what others think are the biggest advancements made with the new CAW of the old CCAW from the player's direct and immediate perspective?

[MarkShot]

(5) Strikes can be scheduled (have their launch time adjusted).

[MarkShot]

(6) One air wing can strike multiple targets at the same time. In CCAW, once the air wing (even if not all planes are allocated) is allocated, you can no longer select targets. Makes you wonder why ever strike with anything less than the entire wing. Okay some more testing reveals, once the strike is inbound from the target, you may then assign another target to planes which were held back.

[Adam Parker]

Mark here's the biggest question for me:
 
What's the tension of the search like in the old CaW? Are searches more played out, more intense, of longer duration - is the map scale different for example meaning more time for TF's to maneuver and larger search times needed to cover an area?
 
Also you mentioned in another thread that the AI seems to randomize its TG's between plays. That's a huge improvement of the former CaW if so. Is that right?
 
Thanks for doing all this comparative work for us.

[MarkShot]

Adam,

At the moment, it is easy to compare UI functions available between the games as I have not played neither that much. But UI stuff is very obvious.

I really don't know about the map sizes.

I have reloaded scenario save points in CCAW and I have seen things not play out the same even over very short time frames of just a few hours. It appears to be me that sightings and actions are highly variable. Also, I did skim throught the CCAW manual and there appeared to be War Cards (SSG's odd name for what effectively is a scenario scripting/programming facility) to vary the start of a scenario.

So far, I have just been playing the Coral Sea (USA) in CCAW. There is clearly enough room to maneuver such that the full range of possibilities exist:

(1) Under air cover of land bases. Although I don't know why this scares the OPFOR AI, since the my land based bombers have yet to hit anything that floats! But clearly, the OPFOR AI is wary and there is a War Card for defining what is call Threat Area.

(2) Have your TGs out of striking range of the AI's TGs.

(3) Have your TGs at extended strinking range that just dive bombers can make it.

(4) Have your TGs at close range that you can send a combined air assault.

(5) Have the the two TGs run into at night and engage in quick surface engagement.

---

Right now, I am quickly browsing the scenarios I have besides the basic PTO ones. There appears to be about 40 something scenarios with about 105 variants. 40 (counting paging the scenario selection) 105 (counting the *.AIQ files which seem to define a variant) So, that yields about 800 starting games (2 sides) if one was to assume there is no variability. Finally, there is the option to turn over any amount of land based and sea based forces to the AI. I suppose that might also add some interesting possibilities. At the moment, I've been taking total control. One might consider that CCAW is a dead game (no community to expand it; I won't edit scenarios myself), yet I think there is enough to keep oneself busy here. I think my $30+ USD was well spent.

[MarkShot]

Adam,

Well, it seems CCAW does come with lots of scenarios, but a quick look at a few of them show them full of naval forces, but very lacking in carriers. Effectively, you are going to be playing the game mainly for spotting effects and surface combat. I have to say that the surface combat in both of these games is somewhat lack luster. It's the air interactions that makes it interesting. So, perhaps the 40 something CCAW scenarios overstates the play value there.

In answer to your map size question ... I just checked the Coral Sea maps and it is the same size. Of course, much more readable with CAW.

Finally, I observed something interesting. With both games, you can turn over control to the AI. However, with CCAW, you can actually let the game run full hands off and step in and countermand orders of the AI for either side.

In other words, you can do a side select while the scenario is playing out. Perhaps that is for hot seat ... although I don't see how that works with no FOW. However, I would think scenario designers would love to be able to run a handsoff game and watch how it evolved between the two AI sides. Interesting.

[MarkShot]

CCAW - Yes, it appears that you can hotseat the game with two players. Each side puts in its orders (while the other averts his eyes) and then say runs for an hour. I guess that's another reason the game has summarized result screens. It seems to me hot seating would be somewhat cumbersome ... I would much rather TCP.

[MarkShot]

I just went back to CAW to check out the Coral Sea:

(1) Nice little inset map showing where your air base or TG is when you are not on the map screen.

(2) Transit times are displayed for ships. This is a nice convenience. I was using a calculator to determine if where I would be on the map at day break and the air search planes went up. As I had wanted to be in a squal line, but in range of the enemy in order to launch my strike.

---

I don't see any way to transfer planes between air bases. In the Coral Sea, I was moving planes back and forth between Townsville and Port Moresby. You can see the transfer order in my land based screen capture; about 4-5 screens down.

[MarkShot]

CAW - There is a little bit more flexibility in being able to group TGs in the scenario which are independent of the command TG. That flexibility does not exist in CCAW.

[MarkShot]

Another CAW and CCAW difference. In CCAW, you can dettached a crippled CV and then navigate the adhoc TG. According to the CAW Manual, in CAW a dettached crippled CV TG will automatically proceed to the nearest flee point.

[MarkShot]

Crippled TG ...

[MarkShot]

Navigating ...