Carriers

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Fri Sep 15, 2000 5:38 am

Hey All,

And all I wanted was a segue into the Carrier Strike engine whenever carrier task forces looked like they were gonna get into it.
Yes, I understand your plight. I feel your pain. It's battles like that that P--- me off and make me reload or start over again! But I guess that's the limitation of coding in DOS. I'm in no way belittleing the accomplishments of the team that's working on it now. I am unaware of the imposed limitations they face(self-imposed or otherwise) But as it's now obvious, as far as the customers desire, "We are not alone". So I guess it's up to someone to pick up the idea and run with it. Well, I just hope I'm still around when someone does.

Stew,

RCR · Post by **RCR** » Fri Sep 15, 2000 8:46 am

Originally posted by RonStewart:
Here's my rub: I played the very first "Real" game on carrier warfare called "Carrier Strike". I know SSG put out Carriers at War and yes it's fun (sorta). But the campaign option just blew CAW out of the water (no pun intended ;}

I felt exactly the same about CS vs. CAW. CAW was arguably a more advanced game, but the campaign game in CS made it really stand out. Even though the "campaign" just linked scenarios, the fact that a the loss of a ship in one scenario hurt you in the next forced you to think like a commander, not like some kid playing a "real time strategy game" who benefits by wasting units in WWI-style attacks.

[This message has been edited by RCR (edited September 15, 2000).]

bpolarsk · Post by **bpolarsk** » Fri Sep 15, 2000 10:59 am

Just a practical idea : I do not think it is possible to merge all those games. But what may be done, is to have the strategic level game, generating scenario files to be loaded by lower level operational/tactical games. There is no need there of testing Scenario game balance, as the input would come from forces in presence in the strategic game. Ie assault Guadalcanal in 'War in the Pacific', and resolve the combat in Steel panther V(?). The OOB of Steel panther, the force entrence on the map are provided by 'War in the Pacific'. Same thing for Wir 2

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Fri Sep 15, 2000 10:12 pm

Hey! That's a good idea! What if you used the data from a file in PacWar to generate a scenario to be handled in Carrier strike then took the results of that engagement and reinput the data back to PacWar? That's an idea!

Stew,

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Fri Sep 15, 2000 11:35 pm

I have actually been working independently on just such an idea. I have been converting my Pacwar database editor to a Carrier Strike editor. Once I have this complete, I should be able to pull data from Pacwar into Carrier Strike and back again.

I have also been working on a concept for transferring appropriate portions of the Pacwar map to make a Carrier Strike map that covers the region of battle. I'll keep you posted on how this is going.

Regards,

Rich Dionne

sapperland · Post by **sapperland** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:15 am

Having tactical battles done in Pacific War sounds fine...if you have the time and ambition to play that way. Just make sure that an auto resolve can be used for people that want to leave that micro managment to the AI. After all, you can only play so many hours in a week. Work, kids, wife, etc.. have demands that make games...well low on the totem pole

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:49 am

Having tactical battles done in Pacific War sounds fine...if you have the time and ambition to play that way. Just make sure that an auto resolve can be used for people that want to leave that micro managment to the AI. After all, you can only play so many hours in a week. Work, kids, wife, etc.. have demands that make games...well low on the totem pole

Oh my poor eyes to read this, everything was fine till that totem pole, micro management hurt but I can understand, just set the computer to play it's self and you save lots of effort. Work thats what panic buttons are for so the boss see's a spread sheet instead of game, wife? someone has to be able to make beer runs (how come she don't play?) kids? "Hey who wants a dollar? to get daddy a cold one" these are how you save time to play. How are you ever going to win a war if you can not figure out logistics?

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 8:11 am

Amen Mogami!

As I dont have kids I can play often. The wife is understanding enough that I can play for hours a day. And besides, even if I couldn't play more than one turn a day or so, there's this new technological breakthrough called the ""SAVE"" function. But Rich Dionne may just end up on my Christmas list if he comes through with this PW to CS to PW thing. You da man Rich!

Stew,

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 8:40 am

The concept for the Carrier Strike link would be that you would never have to use it if you didn't want to. You could always run all the battles in Pacwar. However, if you wanted to jump to Carrier Strike, then in the link program you would:

1) Indicate the Pacwar base that is to be the target of the Carrier Strike battle.

2) Set a corner of the map by Pacwar coordinate that would define the map in Carrier Strike.

3) Port over all ships/TF's heading toward the target base, and all airgroups located on bases covered by the smaller map. Do this before execution in Pacwar.

4) Run the battle in Carrier Strike to conclusion.

5) Run the execution in Pacwar.

6) Port back the Carrier Strike results into Pacwar for all units that took part.

Anyway, that's the plan. We'll see if it works! I hope I haven't bit off more than I can chew!

Regards,

Rich

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 9:12 am

RICH!!

THOU ART A GOD! I AM NOT WORTHY! Keep me abreast of your release. I'll be knockin down your door when it happens! I am thankful SOMEONE finally listened.

Thanks,

Stew,

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:22 pm

For that matter, couldn't you use the WIR engine to resolve land battles as well...just port the units present, supply status, entrenchment level ect. over, and have the theatre "land battle" map updated after each turn is resolved to reflect the PW status after bombardment, air attack, resupply ect.

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:38 pm

For that matter, couldn't you use the WIR engine to resolve land battles as well...just port the units present, supply status, entrenchment level ect. over, and have the theatre "land battle" map updated after each turn is resolved to reflect the PW status after bombardment, air attack, resupply ect.

You know, I'm liking this board more by the day! You guys really have some good ideas!

Stew,

RevRick · Post by **RevRick** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 2:20 am

Regarding tactical vs. operational gaming.
Do we really want to shift gears from 2nd Looie to Vice Admiral, or vice versa. Some of us DON'T have time to resolve every skirmish along the way - things like jobs demand a certain percentage of our time. Besides that, the beauty of this game, as well as one of the frustrations, is to send out a force to accomplish a mission - and watch them fail utterly - as every theater level commander - which this game emulates - has to do from time to time - and then pick up the pieces. I love tactical level games also - but... this one has been for a long time a wonderful operational game. Point the force there, and make plans to proceed in either success or failure. Now, if they can manage to include a "butt chewing" command, other than sending someone like Ghormley to command the Aluetian Islands, then that would make this a lot more fun.
BTW, I share the feeling about watching a fully locked and loaded CV TF take out an airbase for the umptieth time that turn while two enemy CV's blythely steam away as if protected by the hand of God. Even worse was watching a ship take about 250 hits from successive airstrikes just because its roof was flat when all the ships with big guns sat by and watched the fireworks. Any thing to address these bugs.

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Sun Sep 17, 2000 2:38 am

Rick,

I understand your concern over the job. But what we've been talking about and asking for is an "option" to fight operational or strategic engagements. For too long, we've fought tooooooooooooooooooo many battles only to commence swearing, "X@%#!" and reassure ourselves, "If I'd been running the show!" Well, hopefully now sometime soon we'll be able too. I'm not calling the others who would not use such an option "Liliputions" or those of us who would "Promethians" either. We just want that option! "I served my 20 and I want the right of choice!" ahem, excuse my tirade....

Stew,