Too easy ?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Thats a good point about the torp bombers vs dive bombers field of view.  But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.

BK, is thst the old Panzer Leader box cover art as your avatar? I love it!

[rogeur]

Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor


So what you're saying is that i should play the americans , because else it is to easy.
Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.
And for the record, this is not the same as the original, that one was really good.
I miss playing with the planes on deck.It has better looks, but the gameplay isnt to great, sorry.
Back to WitP for me.

[ravinhood]

snicker

[82nd Airborne]

ORIGINAL: rogeur


Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.

I thought the Japanese had to successfully invade PM for a win, otherwise the best they could do was draw? [&:]

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.

The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.

Perhaps the AI hadn't spotted the other TGs. It doesn't cheat, so it only attacks TGs it has actually sighted (unless it runs across some others by accident).

Gregor

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: rogeur


Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor


So what you're saying is that i should play the americans , because else it is to easy.
Try the coral sea with japan, just attack the sightings, dont do anything else.
You win.
And for the record, this is not the same as the original, that one was really good.
I miss playing with the planes on deck.It has better looks, but the gameplay isnt to great, sorry.
Back to WitP for me.

Well, on the theory that the customer is always right I suppose I should just forget everything I know about the gameplay in our game and agree with you, but I have to say its a struggle...

Gregor

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.
The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.

Perhaps the AI hadn't spotted the other TGs. It doesn't cheat, so it only attacks TGs it has actually sighted (unless it runs across some others by accident).
Gregor

OK, but if the AI's surface TGs are being attacked by enemy carrier planes, then shouldn't it start looking for those carriers instead of "wave hopping" against an already decimated TG w/o any carriers left?

[martxyz]

I'm sorry to see all this CAW bashing going on. I haven't played it, as it is on my "buy next" list, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to make some reasonable comment. The first is that CAW has a long and distinguished history and people have bemoaned it's demise for years, to the point that it practically had legendary status. Now, when it comes back, programmed by the same team, with all the advantages that the original CAW had, plus some extra facilities, suddenly the AI is no good. "It's not like the good old days" doesn't really work when your arguing with the original programmer.

Secondly, naval warfare, throughout the centuries has, despite many examples of brilliance, also been a history of lucky breaks, and complete and total cock-ups. The fact of the matter is that any damn thing could happen in most of the larger sea battles. The Rodney wasn't supposed to blow up like a fire-cracker, and the american aircraft carriers were so naughty that they forgot they were meant to be at Pearl Harbour, when the Japanese wnent to sink them. As I recall, they didn't call off the attack on the surface ships so that they could go play chasey for the carriers.

It's a game. It's pretty cheap. It's highly rated, has the same AI as the original which everybody worships, and there's no point telling Gregor that he doesn't know what he's talking about, unless you're suggesting he did the new programming whilst sucking on LSD tabs.

Give it a break, for heavens sake.

Finally, it is also the case, that in real life, in any land, air or sea battle, there's a good chance that one side has a much higher probability of winning. They never stopped the battle, rang each other up, and discussed whether they thought the play balance was about right.

Sorry - serious lack of patience. Gregor is being very polite, because as we all know, the customer always thinks he's right, even if he's not.

[martxyz]

ORIGINAL: Mart
The Rodney wasn't supposed to blow up like a fire-cracker,

OOPS!! Make that the Hood - it's late! [>:]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mart

I haven't played it, as it is on my "buy next" list, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to make some reasonable comment.

You could have fooled me.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mart

It's a game. It's pretty cheap. It's highly rated, has the same AI as the original which everybody worships, and there's no point telling Gregor that he doesn't know what he's talking about, unless you're suggesting he did the new programming whilst sucking on LSD tabs.

I don't believe that Gregor is the programmer.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Mart


Sorry - serious lack of patience. Gregor is being very polite, because as we all know, the customer always thinks he's right, even if he's not.

I've seen a lot of good feedback on this game in the forums here, and the word on the street is that SSG takes it seriously. We're not talking a Harpoon-level cock-up here.

[decaro]

I have to assume this is addressed to me as my name is in your reply.

I'm not bashing anything; I have a reasonable question re C@W's AI, which is apparent in all my posts/replys if you bothered to read them.

Since I never played the original, I can't -- and haven't -- compared the two games.

And I don't have to be right, but after waiting a month for a back-ordered boxed set of this game -- for which I paid top dollar -- I think I'm entitled to an intelligent answer.

This doesn't seem to pose a problem for Gregor, so why is it a problem for you?

[MarkShot]

Some comments ...

Well, I have been playing the original and have found that game to be of reasonable difficultly. But it is perhaps true that the scenarios aren't evenly balanced for both sides.

To be honest, it is a very rare game that can be played from both sides in a given scenario and offer a tough challenge to the player. Usually, scenarios tend to be skewed one way or another due to scenario specifics or because the game engine handles either attack or defense better.

Finally, I am confused by the comments about lack of randomess. I have looked at the warcards in both CAW and CCAW, there are usually 3-5 alternative behaviors/patrol areas for each TG. As I have said before, it is hard to imagine scenarios playing out without being random unless the engine itself is broken, since it is certainly being addressed in the scenario design.

Finally, folks have commented on AI TGs obviously ignoring some specific human TGs. That may not be the AI at all, but simply the scenario design. In the warcards, it is possible to configure how a TG will address specific types of enemy formations it finds in the area and it is also possible to set up something similar for enemy TGs that suprise you in the local area. So, failure of an AI TG to attack an invasion force could simply be that it is not scripted in the scenario for the AI TG to target such a force.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

One area of the design that may be escaping some folks is the extent to which the developer appears to have built in alternative approaches to winning the game, to the point, in some cases, of "cooking" the scenario. For instance, in some situations they have created a bombardment or invasion force that's relatively small, and therefore vulnerable to air-attack and neutralization. Lose that handful of ships and your claim to victory is in jeopardy. There are indeed ways to beat one's enemy, human or AI, without ever sinking an enemy carrier, invasions, bombardments and so on. This is important because it often times forces players away from focusing solely on eliminating enemy CV.

PoE

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Finally, I am confused by the comments about lack of randomess. I have looked at the warcards in both CAW and CCAW, there are usually 3-5 alternative behaviors/patrol areas for each TG. As I have said before, it is hard to imagine scenarios playing out without being random unless the engine itself is broken, since it is certainly being addressed in the scenario design.

This issue with lack of randomness in the scenarios provided with the game, is quite clear in the following 2 behaviors:

1. TG's do not change in composition between plays. Once you've seen the enemy's carriers within a TG comprising X ships, you know next time you play to ignore all TG's other than those comprising X ships.

2. Though some TG's do start in deifferent positions on the map and I gave SSG kudos for this in one of my very first posts on this game, in scenarios such as Midway and Solomons, the AI's carrier TG's will usually be found in the same locale or approaching from the same map coordinates.

Now, Alex at SSG has said the team is looking into making scenarios more replayable and random. I'm getting around this by not playing the game for a week or 2 and letting real life erase my CaW memory.

I think my idea of extra FoW in terms of less detailed spotting reports and progressive revelations of sightings per day, will be the icing on the cake to whatever else SSG decides upon.

But for now, though I love the game and the tension when there is unknown, it's on the shelf until forced amnesia sets in.

Also I'd love the bugs fixed so I can go on and play the last 3 scens more fully.

So, to answer the OP's question again - is the game too easy? Well, given luck in not letting the AI find you first, yes it can be as long as you can remember what you're looking for. But even then, I'm finding the action solid given the fickleness of fate.

Also as I said above, I wouldn't base an evaluation of the game solely on play of Wake and Pearl. It was Wake that nearly made me throw the game away early on.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

So, to answer the OP's question again - is the game too easy?

For me, playing as the Japanese, the answer is a resounding yes. And I don't believe that turning one nut on the engine this way or that will fix it. Addressing the doctrinal differences between the two sides is the way to go.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[MarkShot]

Adam,

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
1. TG's do not change in composition between plays. Once you've seen the enemy's carriers within a TG comprising X ships, you know next time you play to ignore all TG's other than those comprising X ships.

I wonder if this issue exists in CCAW. As I have received reports with FOW and variable number of ships (it seems to me). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that with CAW the ship categories may be wrong but the total count will be accurate (thus IDing the particular TGs). I don't believe that's the case for CCAW. Ship counts vary from one spotting report to the next.

So, have I correctly understoond this issue vis-a-vis CAW?

Thansk.

[MarkShot]

Sighting #1 - 5 ships

[MarkShot]

Sighting #1 - 10 ships