What am I missing?

[Gregor_SSG]

Adam,

You're missing the fun, excitement and almost unbearable tension of a great game. Try playing Midway or Coral Sea as the US and see how easy it is to win. We put Wake Island into the game so we could use it for the tutorials and because its a simple scenario. Now that you know the gameplay, try something more challenging.

Above all, I would say think like an Admiral. You complain that in the Strike Screen you can do nothing. Well, that's because guys like Fletcher and Nimitz didn't jump into dive bombers and personally plant bombs on enemy flight decks.

Nor did they, mid battle, change TG doctrine about formation, CAP and the like.

When you start a CAW scenario, you are effectively in the middle of a battle, it's just that the actual firing hasn't started yet. You need to make tough decisions with the forces that you have and live with the uncertainty that results.

You seem to take the loss of the Enterprise somewhat casually, I hate it when the bad guys sink any of my ships, let alone a carrier and sometimes I can barely bring myself to look at the strike screen when a full strike of enemy planes is heading my way.

Personally, I think any game that makes you yell things at the computer screen has a lot going for it, and that's just what Carriers at War does for me, even though I've played the game countless times.

The very first release of Carriers at War sold over 100,000 copies and that for a game with graphics and interface that are stone age by today's standards. It's been hugely popular ever since, so I'm not just giving my own, somewhat biased, opinion but that of huge numbers of satisfied customers.

Gregor

[CJMello63]

I just played Wake twice as Allies. First time (Alternate) I get a decisive victory but it seems more so because the Japanese do not try to take wake and not so much for my command presence.

Second play (historical)turns out like previous games as they take Wake with time to spare.

Adam you playing historical or alternate?

[Adam Parker]

Historical mate. Gonna post an AAR of Pearl now.

IMO if you damage the Jap carriers they give up the scen and call off the invasion.

The only time I saw the Japs win Wake ie: invade, was when I hadn't read the rulebook and didn't know how to launch a strike [;)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

There are some small items, details that could improve the game, IMO.

For instance, it'd be cool if the developer would introduce some assymetry into the carrier operations based on the respective doctrine and capabilities of the U.S. and Japanese forces circa 1941-42. As an example, FORCE the IJN commander to use the "coordinated strike" feature so long as he has at least two carriers in his TG, and penalize the USN player (somehow) if he uses it. Likewise, when IJN carriers are operating by division (which they always should be), have one carrier supply an airstrike with its Kate squadron and the other its Val squadron, as was done throughout 1942. As for TG composition, ALL of the IJN's fast, big-deck carriers ought to be included in a single, Kido Butai-style formation, whereas, the U.S. probably ought to be limited to two hulls per group. These are just a few possibilities, ones that wouldn't require any big re-write of the code, but would give the game more character.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Just wanted to suggest another "easy" one.

It'd be very, very simple to make the Dauntless a CAP/fighter in the game as they were so employed at Coral Sea and before. The aircraft's forward-firing, fifty-caliber machine-guns were more than adequate to KO a Val or Kate, and bagged a Zero or two along the way, as well.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Llyranor]

ORIGINAL: CTB123

Remember, you are playing the Admiral on the bridge, not the operations officer in Carriers at War. This release is very authentic to the original game.

There is a lot to consider. What direction do you search? The more directions you search, the less aircraft available for other tasks. How many carriers do I search with? Do I launch at that sighting? The Fog of War is very real. Those reported carriers may turn out to be transports. Do you launch now, or wait until you get more Intel? Do you launch now at maximum range with a reduced ordnance load and no fighters, or do you wait and close the range? Do I launch a coordinated/cohesive strike, or do I get my planes there as fast as they can get there? How many fighters do you keep on CAP? Do you put up a heavy CAP at dawn and risk having them all coming back to fuel when the enemy strike really hits? Do you risk a late day strike if that means recovering aircraft after dark? Do you keep aircraft armed and ready so they will be ready to strike quicker with the risk of having fueled and armed aircraft on deck when an enemy strike hits? Do I believe my pilots when they say they sank 3 enemy carriers, or did they miss or even misidentify them?

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
Above all, I would say think like an Admiral. You complain that in the Strike Screen you can do nothing. Well, that's because guys like Fletcher and Nimitz didn't jump into dive bombers and personally plant bombs on enemy flight decks.

Nor did they, mid battle, change TG doctrine about formation, CAP and the like.

When you start a CAW scenario, you are effectively in the middle of a battle, it's just that the actual firing hasn't started yet. You need to make tough decisions with the forces that you have and live with the uncertainty that results.

You seem to take the loss of the Enterprise somewhat casually, I hate it when the bad guys sink any of my ships, let alone a carrier and sometimes I can barely bring myself to look at the strike screen when a full strike of enemy planes is heading my way.

This is what I wanted to hear. I just needed a bit of prompting, but I'm jumping over the fence now. Purchased and downloading.

[Jam_USMC]

ORIGINAL: Jam_USMC

I am right with you on all those points. I seem to be searching for something. Detail, depth, interaction? I'm not sure. I just assumed if it was released by Matrix that I would spend hours just learning how to play and days perfecting my play, but as it seem so far the game is just shy of a click-fest. I hope I am wrong and will probably spend my entire weekend trying to prove it.

Jam

UNCLE! UNCLE!

I retract my previous post. This game really is pretty good. Could be better. There is more potential. But the detail and depth is not readily apparent as I might have expected. It lies more within the development of strategy and necessity of changing it based on changing circumstances. And unlike so many other games there can be an almost palpable element of suspense even when nothing is going on. The fun is in the hunt. Really love the music too.

Finally, many thanks to the forum and those who post here. Had I not read all the folks defending this thing I might have given up. But I didn't and now I have another fun game to enjoy. Glad I proved myself wrong.

Jam

[e_barkmann]

palpable

heh, that's the word I used in my CAW multiplayer testing reports.

But it's true, you can feel it.

cheers Chris

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Unhappy

If you play the Midway scenario (as the Americans) you know that if you spot a group of 12 ships - whatever the sighting report says they are - then there is a 50% chance that it is the Japanese carrier strike force because it is ALWAYS in a group of 12 ships and there is only one other group of 12 Japanese ships.  I'm sure if you play a few times you can identify with a fair degree of accuracy what the enemy groups are just based on the ship count because the initial set-up never varies.

Hands up everyone who can name all the Carriers present at Midway. You are now in possession of information they would have killed for at the time and would have greatly affected how they conducted the encounter.

This is the conundrum of all games of this genre and scale. You can vary things with the supplied editor but is it Midway anymore??? [&:]

There were only a finite number of carrier encounters (particularly even matches) during the war and they don't make them any more...... The editor certainly adds variability and challenge to the game but I have found that fighting endless battles between random lists of participants soon loses the immersion of playing in a historical period and you might as well be playing a fantasy game like Warcraft. (Nothing against the game or genre but I am a historical wargame player....) [:D]

Games with campaign aspects like WITP avoid the problem by setting up battles based on player decisions which adds ownership to the encounter.

I am really looking forward to see what the modders come up with as their creativity always astounds me.

I have played the original CAW many times and I think I seeing comments from new owners based on the fact that CAW appears too easy to play. CAW is based on the premise that you are the commander and you have a staff to handle all the minor details and leave the overall strategy to you.

If you CHOOSE to take a hands off approach, you can let your staff conduct most of the battle for you. Your staff have been programmed to be reasonably competent and as fortune plays a major part in these type of operations, you can score a decisive victory if fortune smiles your way and you happen to catch the enemy in a compromising position.

I think the challenge comes in being able to do this consistantly. What do you do when you realise you are spotted and there is no sign of the enemy flat tops on your plotting chart?? In real life, the lives of thousands of men (and your career) ride on the results of this one encounter. Would you leave it to dumb luck?? [:-]

On the whole I think it was a great and enjoyable game and the remake appears to be a worth successor.

Just a few thoughts,

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Adam,

You're missing the fun, excitement and almost unbearable tension of a great game.

I think I'm finding it Gregor. I think I'm almost there. I just sank two Jap carriers at Coral Sea and knowing it can be done gives me a sense that the game is sound and challenging.

I'm going to do some study this week and visit Hylands to see what they have within budget. Did I read you've got the full "History of the UNO in WW2"?

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Personally, I think any game that makes you yell things at the computer screen has a lot going for it, and that's just what Carriers at War does for me, even though I've played the game countless times.

Yep I'm beginning to do that too. It's all a matter of confidence in the soundness and logic of the engine for me.

I'm experiencing a few crashes now so may sit back a little and study the rules until you guys can work up a fix.

But to a guy who has never played the Original CAW, it takes some time to understand exactly what the player's role is and how much decision making he actually has to feel like he makes a difference. I'm beginning to believe that element exists.

For guys who have played CAW from the 90's I'm sure they will fit right in and give you some healthy sales. The interface is smooth, some very nice innnovations in terms of convenience. You get full marks there. You should give John Tiller a call and see if you guys can partner to integrate your 2d top down art into his Naval Campaigns games. Very nice graphic work.

Cheers,
Adam.