Carrier Strike - One of the best game ever!! (IMHO)

KING · Post by **KING** » Sat Aug 11, 2001 11:37 pm

Just played again that game from year 1992, made by himself Gary Grigsby and I must say it is still one of the best navy game ever. Not well known, I had never earlier heard about it before I get it with Twenty Wargame Classics collection some 4 years ago.

Bloody air strikes against Carrier fleets. You never know when enemy is coming... until it´s too late avoid them. You must find them before they finds you... Simple but good. No much brain works needed

Only bad thing in game is that even you won few first battles as Japanese player, Americans wins anyway. Maybe not by scores, but battles are always same, strict historical, ending to last historical carrier battle in Marianas.

Therefore a question: Is there in Matrixgames any plans to do new version of Carrier Strike? It would be even better game if campaigns would be randomized so that if you win one Carrier battle with huge victory, next battle would be battled in the waters of Los Angeles (or Tokyo) instead of the Marianas´, for example.

What you think about that? Would you play it? I would.

davidmiller · Post by **davidmiller** » Sun Aug 12, 2001 2:50 am

I agree. That was one of my favorite games early on , and it did keep you on the eadge of your seat playing it. Trying to reload your planes and making sure of your CAP before any enemy strikes happen made the game exciting to play. Personally, I feel Matrix is concentrating on completing and releasing some of their anticipated games and they may be shorthanded on taking on any new project. I agree with you however, that I would love to see someone update Carrier Strike.

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Sun Aug 12, 2001 6:20 pm

Yep!..one of my favorites too!..unfortunately the newer computers made it more difficult to play dos programs and my sound never worked unless i set it for "pc sounds."..always crashed otherwise,but the game itself was real "beer and pretzels" and i loved being able to load the planes as i saw fit..for it's day,the graphics of the planes and ships was good too!..lotsa potential for a re-work.. :rolleyes:

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 3:02 pm

I used to love that game until my asshole friend hack the game and played with jet fighter............. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 4:02 am

Carrier strike's only good point with myself was that it introduced a campaign element for carrier warfare for the first time.

Other than that i found the game engine to very inferior to it's ancestor 'Carrier Force'

Mind you i'm not talking about the interface or other playability features. I'm reffering to the combat resolution and certain quirks that were revealed in the game engine through actual play.

The fact that Grigsby went back to the tried and true (not to mention exciting) format of 'Carrier Force' and 'USAAF' when he created his masterpiece 'Pacific War' is testiment alone to that.

The seperation of the AA and Air to sea attack phase was disjointed and lacked excitement. As for game play, the Fighter vs Fighter combat was ridiculously low on casualties except in the latest months of the campaign when the USN side had overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment.

Prior to that one almost did'nt need to bother sending up a CAP as they'd be lucky to bag half a dozen planes at best.

Given Matrix's recent and excellent work revamping "Pacific War", i'd much rather see them overhaul Grigsby's classics, Warship and Battlecruiser.

We need a good tactical naval wargame for the WWI and WWII era's.

nyarlathotep · Post by **nyarlathotep** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 11:48 am

OMG KING you and I are on the same wavelength. This is so creepy I had the utmost intention to ask about this when I got into work tonight and when I get here what do I see? An exact mirror of the question that was in my mind! YOU ARE THE MAN!

So, Matrix, when will we see it? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I was especially fond of the micromanagement of each squadron. Payload, how many to send, and where to send.
It was tough to win as Japanese but not impossible. Just had to keep sinking the U.S. carriers faster than they could be sent and ignore the surface TF.

Remeber, nothing was more heartbreaking than having a sub torpedo your flattop with a deck full of loaded planes!

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 10:35 pm

I don't know about Matrix, but Gary, Keith and I would like to do another tactical carrier game in the future. Given our current commitments, however, it will be 2003 at least before we get around to doing another carrier game.

Joel

Ironfist738 · Post by **Ironfist738** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 10:51 pm

Originally posted by KING:
Just played again that game from year 1992, made by himself Gary Grigsby and I must say it is still one of the best navy game ever. Not well known, I had never earlier heard about it before I get it with Twenty Wargame Classics collection some 4 years ago.

Bloody air strikes against Carrier fleets. You never know when enemy is coming... until it´s too late avoid them. You must find them before they finds you... Simple but good. No much brain works needed <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Only bad thing in game is that even you won few first battles as Japanese player, Americans wins anyway. Maybe not by scores, but battles are always same, strict historical, ending to last historical carrier battle in Marianas.

Therefore a question: Is there in Matrixgames any plans to do new version of Carrier Strike? It would be even better game if campaigns would be randomized so that if you win one Carrier battle with huge victory, next battle would be battled in the waters of Los Angeles (or Tokyo) instead of the Marianas´, for example.

What you think about that? Would you play it? I would.

Hey that sounds cool. I never played the pc ver. but I do have the Boardgame. My six year old son loves to play it. What company has CarrierStrike and is it still avialable ?

KING · Post by **KING** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 11:25 pm

Originally posted by Ironfist738:

Hey that sounds cool. I never played the pc ver. but I do have the Boardgame. My six year old son loves to play it. What company has CarrierStrike and is it still avialable ?

I get it some 5 years ago from game collection named "20 Wargame Classics" (if I remember title right. I don´t have that game package near me right now.) It was published by SSI.

I don´t know does they still sell it, so you may find it easiest from used games markets. It´s DOS game so it´s possible that it won´t work correctly in today´s Operating Systems. However it works in my Windows 2000.

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: KING ]</p>

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Tue Aug 21, 2001 12:53 am

you can find the game at www.theunderdogs.org

nyarlathotep · Post by **nyarlathotep** » Tue Aug 21, 2001 12:06 pm

Ironfist I have the expansion for it too if you need me to email to you no problem.

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Tue Aug 21, 2001 10:49 pm

Hi Guys,

In case you're interested, I've been working on an interface tool linking Gary Grigsby's Pacific War and Carrier Strike games called PacLink.

PacLink will port any 1700 mile by 1400 mile area of the Pacific War map into Carrier Strike, and it will bring every base, ship, and air-group in
the area with it. You can use PacLink to create new scenarios taken from Pacific War for play in Carrier Strike at an operational level. The entire Pacific Theatre is represented down to a 17 mile hex size.

It’s free, and available for download at my website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tmflood/page3.html

I'm still in the process of developing the tool, so you may find some bugs. Let me know what you encounter, and I’ll do my best to fix them.

Some additional features I'm working on include porting the results of your Carrier Strike game back into Pacific War, and giving the player more control over land based air groups in Carrier Strike. I'd also like to develop the ability to create new scenarios in PacLink without the need to download from Pacific War. To get you started quick, I’ve included 2 scenarios created with PacLink: Pearl Harbor in savea, and Coral Sea in saveb.

Regards,

Rich Dionne

KING · Post by **KING** » Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:29 pm

Thank you for link!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

RayM · Post by **RayM** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 3:47 am

After all of the talk about Carrier Strike, I just had to find out for myself. What a game.

Initial impression: In contrast to numerous successes playing PACWAR as the Allies, it really is humbling to see how fast the Japanese AI wipes you out.

To get the hang of the game, I have been playing the Guadalcanal scenario for several days and I just continue to get my rear end waxed as the Allies. It truly is amazing to be told that not one but several 200+ aircraft strikes are headed your way and all you put can put up are 15-20 Wildcats per carrier as a CAP. And then the little a/c icon combat screen comes up and shows your 20 fighter against 200+ IJN a/c. What a show!

Needless to say, I end up losing most if not all of my carriers in a week or two (often sooner) and then it's back to start for another round trying to figure out a better tactical approach. Absolutely amazing. I have tried separating the TF's geographically (i.e., S and E of the Solomons), moving them closer and further away from the Solomons but clearly I have to get close enough to launch strikes that stand a chance. The AI really models the longer range perfomance of the IJN a/c very well indeed. Likewise, the IJN a/c are very accurate in their attacks, while the US forces miss much more often than they hit. And what about the IJN TF's containing 4 CVs that generates those 200+ strikes? Admitedly, historical...but very dangerous.

All things considered, CS really does make you pay attention.

To try and keep me even, can anyone suggest some strategies for this scenario? I have not tried the others yet but may have to in order to see if they are all as difficult for the Allies. On the other hand, I guess this is probably part of the learning curve for this game, or I could be too aggressive in searching for and trying to attack the IJN TFs. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:25 am

Here are some quick comments, Ray.

Early on, the Allies suffer the disadvantages of shorter aircraft range and lower experience than the Japanese. The Japanese also use float planes effectively, leaving their carrier aircraft free to strike.

Your one big advantage is that the Japanese do not yet have radar, so you stand a chance of catching their aircraft on deck. Another advantage is the ability of your DB's to carry 1000 lb bombs. These can devastate the enemy carriers.

If possible, you should keep a screen of surface ships in front of your aircraft so you can see the Japanese strikes coming sooner. Unless you are close to the Japanese carrier TF, try to stay just out of range of the strike, and throw up a lot of fighters on CAP. This will weaken his air groups, and hopefully, some of his aircraft may need to ditch after trying to catch you.

Try not to launch carrier strikes unless your close to the enemy. If you're at the end of your aircraft's range, your Devastators won't be able to reach the target, and your DB's won't be able to carry 1000 lb bombs.

If you're in close, it's going to be bloody, but at least you can hit him with torpedo's and 1000 lb bombs.

One final note, try to draw the enemy into range of your LBA. You can use this to augment your carriers with long range CAP, and hopefully your base commanders will launch strikes.

Hope this helps. Hang in there, I was regularly battered when I first started.

Regards,

Rich

RayM · Post by **RayM** » Fri Aug 24, 2001 6:11 am

Thanks Rich for the info. Will give it a try.

Ray

nyarlathotep · Post by **nyarlathotep** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:39 pm

It's been a while since I played Ray but I think I can add to Richs' strategy.
When playing as the U.S. I believe I held my airstrikes until after the IJN airstrikes. That way I could put all of my fighters on CAP so instead of 200+ against a few it was more like 200+ against approx 100 F4F.
If you make sure your decks are clear when the attack hits and maybe get some scattering by the enemy airstrike, with effective U.S. AA fire and some pure luck you CAN survive that first massive strike.
As soon as it's over send your strike with as much fighter support as you can and you will win.

Believe it or not I remember finishing the campaign as U.S. with no carrier losses. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Good luck!

KING · Post by **KING** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 2:48 pm

I have done that same but as Japanese player <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

RayM · Post by **RayM** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:59 am

Thanks to all for the ideas. I've played about 7 game months since and have managed to keep about even point-wise with the IJN. But the carrier losses are still sobering.

I have also experimented with the computer running both sides to gather some insights into how the game organizes its strikes and how and where it moves. Very interesting and helpful.

Having played up to May 43, I have couple of new questions.

1) The US forces (particularly the SBDs armed with 500 lbs bombs) are still missing quite alot, while the IJN forces are still quite accurate. I would hope that the historical decline in quality of the IJN pilot would start to take affect by now. Could this be because I haven't sunk more IJN carriers and hence the quality of the IJN pilot pool is fairly intact and in turn, US experience remains less? Or am I over-analysing the game?

2) During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?

3) Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo. One possible mitigating factor was that I had recently fought several surface battles in that area and the screen showed several IJN icons still lurking about on their way to the NW. Just wondering. Or does the AI give you just so much time (as fuel pts perhaps?) to get to Henderson Field before the it takes over? Just wondering.

nyarlathotep · Post by **nyarlathotep** » Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:01 pm

The US forces (particularly the SBDs armed with 500 lbs bombs) are still missing quite alot

You want to make sure if at all possible to load up with 1000lbers. That way when you do hit it packs a wallop that is hard for the carrier to recover from.

During one transport mission, I was moving the transport TF to Henderson and tried moving up between Guadalcanal and Malaita and San Cristobal. I seemed to get hung up and I was wondering whether that path was actually allowed?

I believe certain paths, even though they look feasible, are actually blocked due to the fact its shallow water. Can anyone confirm?

Also, I tried moving another transport TF around and over the Tassafronga end of Guadalcanal and just as I rounded the island, the computer took over and started back to Espiritu Santo.

As far as I know the computer will automatically withdraw your units after X amount of damage has been taken or the end of the scenario has occurred.

Have you been torpedoed by a sub with a deck full of planes yet? Pray that it doesn't happen <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Cheers

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: nyarlathotep ]</p>