Why you should buy ALSO the old CCAW as well

[rsitaly]

Hello!

In my opinion, if you have bought CAW and you don't already own CCAW, you should buy it.

Why?

1) it is a really great game
2) it has a LOT of scenarios also from other zones like Mediterranean, letting you explore the capabilities of other navies like ROYAL NAVY and REGIA MARINA for example
3) it runs without any problem in Windows (mine runs in WXP) without having to use DOS BOX
4) the graphics is dated but not as bad as you can think and it is perfectly clear
5) a big, complete, manual on PAPER covering everything including the editor in details

but, more important, it has:

5) almost the same fantastic interface ... I owned CCAW since long time and now I have bought CAW ... immediately I was at home ... almost no need to read the manual!
In my opinion is true also the reverse, going from CAW to CCAW
6) the GAME is really a good one ... this qualify a product not a fancy graphics; I come from boardgames where you can find old games, really bad on graphics, but great as a value.
CCAW is on the market since very long time and it sells still now ... that speaks itself for the value of the game

If you want to force the right resolution and colors on modern monitor, without having to modify them in the control panel so saving all of you icons positions, take this free little product:

http://www.12noon.com/reschange.htm

prepare a BAT with the following line:

reschange -width=800 -height=600 -depth=8 cawv2.exe -s -x

and you will execute CCAW without any problem ... but you can run it also without having to force your resolution of course.

You can find CCAW in many ways:

http://www.ssgus.com/ccaw.html

or from AMAZON or, of course, from EBAY.

Now I'm playing both versions and I'm glad to SSG for both of them!

Roberto

[decaro]

Which game do you like better and why: CCAW or CAW?

(You knew someone was going to ask this)

[rsitaly]

I have CAW only since few days so it is difficult to judge ... but I prefer the old interface that I found cleaner than the new one and, of course, the great number of scenarios is a great asset for the old game; another thing I found better is the old manual, more complete in my opinion ... for example in the new one I was unable to find how many squadrons a landbase can manage ... but I remember 10 from the old game and it is the right value.

Of course the graphics is a lot better in the new game ... and I like the possibility to give the orders using the transparent menus simply selecting a TG.

Roberto

[MarkShot]

Roberto,

As you know I have both, but my problem is that I don't find much depth to it. See this thread I started on depth:

tm.asp?m=1505276

And maybe this one too on modeling operational warfare for WWII:

tm.asp?m=1596579

You obviously have played CCAW a great deal. What I am missing? Why does it seem that the depth is lacking to me? It's mainly about hiding in clouds. Interesting issues of massing and dispersal and how there was a shift from the start of the war where air attacks were extremely difficult to defend against to the end of the war where defense had become viable with: massing, cap, more AAA mounts, radar, and proximity fuses. Have I missed something about the game that makes it worthy of another look?

Thanks.

[rsitaly]

I think you should accept the game for what it is; sincerely ... how many computer games models accurately carrier operations on WWII? I'm still playing CCAW, CAW and CARRIER STRIKE because the lacks of games on this subject.
CAW for example doesn't models surface warfare as it should be ... you can't arrange your formation, no DD's are laying a smoke screen between your units and the enemy, no ships can fire starshells in order to illuminate night combat and there are no searchlights.
In night combat the advantage to have the radar is not examined, and you don't have to turn your carriers into wind for planes operations.
But the game was not designed for this ... it was designed in order to have a historical game without having to micro manage everything ... and in this is a good game; don't forget that a game like this can't reproduce the history at 100% because you KNOW from where the enemy will come!
A simple game that can give you a lot of fun ...

on the other side, if you want a game that gives you a complete insight of naval warfare, you have to play HARPOON 3 (that you have BTW) ... we are speaking now about modern naval warfare and HARPOON is the best on the market ... but how many people want invest the great amount of time needed to play it successfully?
You should know how to arrange your formations, how to employ your sensors, how and where search for the enemy without revealing yourself, how to use your aircraft, how to organize your strikes in order to suppress the defences, how to position and protect your AEW units etc ... in order to do all these things you should know the capability of every platform of your own and the capability of the enemy units, you should know the fleet tactics and how to organize missions in the most flexible way.

I love CAW and I love HARPOON and everyone of them give me many hours of enjoyment ... one is a simple game and the other one is a difficult game but their reasons at the base of the design are different and both successful, so I don;t see a nedd for more depth on CAW.

But I'm also a person that like to patrol a sea zone using my 688 sub in DANGEROUS WATERS without having a contact for hours ...

Roberto

[MarkShot]

Roberto,

Thanks for your answer.

Okay, I see that you are a full spectrum naval enthusiast. However, for me, I just found CAW/CCAW coming down to clouds and luck. When you read my strategy tips did I get it wrong is it deeper than that? Or is mainly clounds and luck?

I don't really need a game to be an intensely complex model to enjoy it. Even games with fairly simple rule systems can lead to fairly elegant strategic considerations and game play. As an example, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, had a fairly basic set of rules and yet there was adequate permutations and issues to yield a deep and rich game. Sadly, in CAW/CCAW that richness just elludes me.

I also own Harpoon which is a better comparison with CAW/CCAW than SC/DW. Harpoon goes into tremendous details beyond what is necessary to simply deliver a rich gaming experience, but it illustrates that certain basic dynamics are necessary to model in naval combat if one is really going to convey the key strategic issues and feel of command.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: rsitaly

... CAW for example doesn't models surface warfare as it should be ... you can't arrange your formation, no DD's are laying a smoke screen between your units and the enemy, no ships can fire starshells in order to illuminate night combat and there are no searchlights ...

SSG said the name of the game was Carriers at War and that's what you're playing with, no more but no less. However, SSG could algor abstract smoke and star shells, but it might be interesting to compare CCaW/CaW w/CF, which is a CV intensive UV, assuming it ever comes out.

ORIGINAL: rsitaly
... on the other side, if you want a game that gives you a complete insight of naval warfare, you have to play HARPOON 3 (that you have BTW) ... we are speaking now about modern naval warfare and HARPOON is the best on the market ...

Yesterday I was watching the AMC enhanced version of The Hunt for Red October; apparently Harpoon is based on US Navy sim software, which Tom Clancy used to help teach him about modern naval warfare.

[MarkShot]

Hmm ... I only recorded and watched regular version.

What's the enhanced version got?

Do you get to look BB and NB tracks and do your own TMA on the Red Ocktober?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

What's the enhanced version got?
Do you get to look BB and NB tracks and do your own TMA on the Red Ocktober?

Letterbox presentation w/all types of fun facts/relevant info running below, i.e., Sean Connery was seasick during most of the filming.

BB, NB, TMA? Ask Jonesee!

[MarkShot]

Broadband
Narrowband
Target Motion Analysis

[Percopius]

Larry Bond is a former Naval Officer and the creator of the Harpoon pen and paper rule set. He and Tom gamed out the action sequences in Hunt for Red October. Larry worked on several of Toms novels. Larry Bond has also written a military thriller novel, forget the name though. Look for it, it's good.

p.

[Staggerwing]

ORIGINAL: Percopius

Larry Bond is a former Naval Officer and the creator of the Harpoon pen and paper rule set. He and Tom gamed out the action sequences in Hunt for Red October. Larry worked on several of Toms novels. Larry Bond has also written a military thriller novel, forget the name though. Look for it, it's good.

p.

Vortex
Red Phoenix
Cauldron

There's more...

[SwampYankee68]

Red Pheonix is a kick-ass book, I highly recommend it!

[justaguy93]

I just found CAW/CCAW coming down to clouds and luck

I find it comes down to mostly luck on getting the first strike in too, but then from the reading I've done on the pacific naval campaign that seems to be how the large battles played out.  It was who sees who first, who gets their strike in first.  Coral sea was a draw because both sides spotted each other and launched simultaneous strikes.  I'm starting to think the fundamental flaw people find with this game is just inherint in the type of combat it represents.  The real strategy in the pacific naval war was knowing when and where to commit your forces and trying to figure out exactly what you were up against before it was too late.  If you have a preset scenario where everything is already laid out for you, there's nothing to do but get scouts out and steam ahead with your fleet until you find something to attack or get attacked yourself.  I'm not sure how you'd change that without making it more of a strategic game vs tactical.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: justaguy93

I just found CAW/CCAW coming down to clouds and luck

I find it comes down to mostly luck on getting the first strike in too, but then from the reading I've done on the pacific naval campaign that seems to be how the large battles played out. It was who sees who first, who gets their strike in first. Coral sea was a draw because both sides spotted each other and launched simultaneous strikes. I'm starting to think the fundamental flaw people find with this game is just inherint in the type of combat it represents. The real strategy in the pacific naval war was knowing when and where to commit your forces and trying to figure out exactly what you were up against before it was too late. If you have a preset scenario where everything is already laid out for you, there's nothing to do but get scouts out and steam ahead with your fleet until you find something to attack or get attacked yourself. I'm not sure how you'd change that without making it more of a strategic game vs tactical.

Good admirals make their own luck. Just steaming straight ahead is an invitation to disaster. Just attacking the first supposed carrier sighting reported is likewise foolish. Tough decisions have to be made about CAP, pre-arming strikes, what to do overnight when all sightings will decay and so on.

With the mystery variants we have started producing, you won't even know how many carriers your opponent has, which makes decision making even less predictable.

Gregor

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Good admirals make their own luck. Just steaming straight ahead is an invitation to disaster. Just attacking the first supposed carrier sighting reported is likewise foolish ...

At Coral Sea, both opposing carrier commanders sent strikes against first sightings and ended up sinking a USN oiler and an IJN CVL.

[justaguy93]

Tough decisions have to be made about CAP, pre-arming strikes, what to do overnight when all sightings will decay and so on.

Maybe I came across wrong there, I wasn't bashing the game.  It just seems like most of the gripes I hear about this game seem to be about things that are a part of how carrier warfare works.  Once you've laid your plans and steam into action it is ultimately going to come down to who launches their strike at the enemy carrier force first.  The real strategy is figuring out where to position your ships to put you in the best position to spot the enemy before they spot you, and then hope you catch a break and spot them and hit them before they launch their own strike.  People who think that once planes start flying is when the game should get interesting are missing the point.  With some exceptions, once a force of planes are in the air moving towards a carrier force you've pretty much won or lost the battle already..which is imho historically accurate.

[decaro]

In the absence of a strategy guide from SSG, Markshot posted one w/about 20 or so suggestions a few pages inside this forum.

I've done everything I can to tweek the scenarios in the editor; now I pretty much stay in the clouds, out of reach, or both and just trust to luck after I launch.

But whatever you do, don't run out of fuel; not only will your ships not sail, but your strikes won't fly either!

One annoying thing re CaW is that the flight decks have a tendency to get fouled-up as the game progresses; this seems more common w/the IJN (more decks, more problems?). If this was to simulate flight deck plane problems I wouldn't mind it so much, but I think it's a bug that was previously reported.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

In the absence of a strategy guide from SSG, Markshot posted one w/about 20 or so suggestions a few pages inside this forum.

I've done everything I can to tweek the scenarios in the editor; now I pretty much stay in the clouds, out of reach, or both and just trust to luck after I launch.

But whatever you do, don't run out of fuel; not only will your ships not sail, but your strikes won't fly either!

One annoying thing re CaW is that the flight decks have a tendency to get fouled-up as the game progresses; this seems more common w/the IJN (more decks, more problems?). If this was to simulate flight deck plane problems I wouldn't mind it so much, but I think it's a bug that was previously reported.

In the game, we let you run out of fuel but in reality that would never have happened. When the RN had lost sight of the Bismarck and was desperately trying to find it again, some ships reported themselves as low on fuel. Churchill suggested that they should steam until they actually ran out, and then be towed as necessary. The naval establishment had a collective heart attack (not the first time that a grand, Churchillian idea had caused this), and the idea was not spoken of again. On a real ship, an order to steam until fuel reached zero would probably see the man issuing the order relieved of duties and quietly confined to his cabin.

As for your strikes with zero fuel, a deckload strike required as many knots of apparent wind over the bow as the CV could manage, and the first men to leave the deck usually had their fingers crossed anyway! With no ship speed, and aircraft loaded with full fuel and ammo, many planes (perhaps all them) are going to end up in the drink. Again, the order would not be given.

As for the decks getting fouled, it is inevitable that things slow down as the day progresses. First thing in the morning, CAP and searches are usually launched and out of the way before sightings can be made and it becomes necessary to launch a large strike. Later in the day, CAP and searchplanes will be landing and launching in a somewhat unpredictable fashion, and planes from previous strikes may be straggling in, all of which can slow things down.

Gregor

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

... As for your strikes with zero fuel, a deckload strike required as many knots of apparent wind over the bow as the CV could manage, and the first men to leave the deck usually had their fingers crossed anyway! With no ship speed, and aircraft loaded with full fuel and ammo, many planes (perhaps all them) are going to end up in the drink. Again, the order would not be given.

I had totally forgotten the simple fact that the carrier had to turn into the wind at high speed to launch! I foolishly thought I was out of avgas as well as fuel.