I would like to see an option to have the Online Orders Displays keep popping up at the last place I moved them. I get tired of every time I click a TG the OOD pops up close to the group and covers the area I want to see......[]
It's already in there, if you click on the symbol next to the "X" (the left hand symbol, i don't recall the button's help text) it will remember the window location and open it exactly at the last spot u moved it.
It's an anchor symbol and it's not quite what I wanted. Once you click the anchor then ALL of those dialog boxes open up in that same place. I wanted each to open at the last place I put them at individually. I program interfaces all the time and for a window to remember the last place it was is not hard to do.
Also once you click the anchor you cannot move the dialog at all until you reclick the anchor. I just wanted the dialog boxes to remember where they were put the last time and go there without a clickfest, like the Windows interface.
On one level, I believe that the game is what it is, and I'm willing to embrace it.
On the other hand , if CaW is gonna be all that it can be, I believe that the developer should go high-fidelity by offering command options to players as they attempt to experience the "real deal" of commanding these forces. I can think of no better way to do it than by introducing doctrinal asymmetries into the game, not ones based on combat hardware, but those based on the different ways of conducting warfare as waged by both sides.
Examples:
1) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use cohesive strikes, as this was so central to their operational doctrine, one that was slavishly adhered to by everyone from Yamamoto, to Genda and Nagumo, one that offered the IJN the best opportunity to mete out a decisive defeat while incurring the fewest casualties.
2) An option should be incorporated such that the IJN player, AI or human, use auxiliary aircraft and/or land-based a/c to conduct searches. Again this is a doctrinal matter. Using valuable strike assets to run "routine" searches would undermine the Kido Butai's ability to deal a Tsushima-style, knockout-blow.
3) An option should be incorporated such that Allied player be incapable of conducting the sort of EFFECTIVE, cohesive strike that the KB had mastered, throughout 1942. While very effective on the inter-squadron level, USN intra-squadron training was simply insufficient to pull this off.
4) An option should be incorporated such that flight operations on carriers of both sides be disrupted by the combat cycle of CAP, the practical affect of which should be that a deck-load strike can't be spotted and launched from a deck that is under attack. Flight logs from air-groups of the period indicate that the ability of these vessels to simultaneously manage both CAP and launch big-wing attacks against enemies was simply non-existent.
These are just a few ideas. I raise them, again, because I think that this was the kind stuff that was weighing on a Task Force commander's mind when he was making his decisions. And I think that's where we all want the game headed.
PoE (aka ivanmoe)
1. Sorry, but there is no way we are going to enforce this on a human player. We've found, usually to our cost, that players react negatively to most forms of compulsion. You mention making it an option, but if you play the Japanese you can do this yourself if you see fit. If you play multiplayer as the US then it something that you would have to negotiate with the other player anyway. As for the AI, I believe that it prefers to do Cohesive strikes anyway, but I wouldn't like to hobble it by making it compulsory, as there are situations where a cohesive strike can't fly but a non-cohesive one can.
2. The search rouines will always use non strike aircraft first in conducting any search missions, so in a carrier TG the floatplanes carried by surface ships will be used first and strike planes only if necessary. If you manage your search sectors properly you shouldn't have too many problems.
3. Both sides had their problems in organising and controlling strikes. The Cohesive button is not a guarantee of a cohesive strike, variations can and do occur.
4. I don't know enough about the responses to an incoming strike to be able to answer this in detail, I'll leave it to Alex or Ian.
I suggested the doctrine options for two reasons. First, my reading suggests that's the way operations were conducted through at least mid-1943. Second, I've done so out of a desire to see the game better balanced and have it generate results more in accord with the historical record.
Failing the incorporation of ANY such changes, I see two substantial flaws in the package. First the game will continue to be wildly unbalanced. Second, I believe that it perpetuates the myth that USN carrier forces were simply lucky and by all measures should have been massacred in these carrier vs carrier duels.
I realize that the IJN had a/c that were superior in the naval strike role and that it's pilots were artists of a sort in the use of those tools. Were that the only consideration, were USN doctrine identical to that of the IJN, THE LATTER WOULD HAVE INDEED PREVAILED, and no amout of luck would have saved the former.
Two suggestions/bug fixes:
1) When a land-based squadron is totally destroyed, I'm finding that for some reason, I can't transfer in new squadrons to take its place. So if I fly in 10 squadrons to Guam, and they're all shot up attacking the US Carrier fleets in the Phillippine Sea scenario, I can end up with 10 squadrons containing zero active planes, so that I can't fly in 10 fresh squadrons from my Carriers or other land bases. IIRC, in the old CAW, any totally destroyed squadrons would be effectively wiped off the landbase roster, so you could replace them with new squadrons, up to the 10-squadron limit. It'd be great to be able to do the same here.
2) Last night, while playing that same Phillippine Sea scenario, I harassed the US fleet enough with my land based air attacks that a good number of US TGs attempted to flee off the board. However, I found that when one of my squadrons from Tinian caught a US TG just as it was heading off the eastern edge of the board, I was able to attack it in that "location" for the rest of the scenario. Even more interesting - when I was launching future strikes against that TG, I was also able to hit other US TGs that had previously fled through that spot in the grid. So I ended up hitting the US transports, which had fled the board days earlier. This seems like a definite bug, if you're trying to allow TGs to completely flee the battle. These poor guys couldn't flee, and I racked up hundreds of VPs sinking them left and right, when they should have been hundreds of miles away by that point...
That's all so far [:)]
Cheers!
it just struck me what this game is lacking, and really, its so core to carrier ops that with out it this game is never going to be realistic
Wind
Carriers must turn into wind to launch
Must be doing at least 20 knots across the deck to launch.
Must Hold that course into the wind for entire launch retrieve cycle.
OPS are too quick.
In real life to launch and recover a strike you would have to cover 15 miles at least, at 30 knots, even more.
several times I have avoided strikes by that amount.
WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops
This game needs to reflect this!
(still like the game but[:)])
big seas, fast ships, life tastes better with salt
WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops
This game needs to reflect this!
(still like the game but[:)])
True. I second that.
"Aw Nuts" General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big." Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
WIND is EVERYTHING to CV ops
This game needs to reflect this!
Good observation, and it would sure make things tougher but more realistic. Maybe an option to have it or not have it. Personally I would click it OFF.
But the wind direction was essential, since there were no catapult starts. Although several models received engine upgrades, various airplanes' (with bigger weapon loadouts, i.e. rockets in addition to bombs for ground combat, additional fuel tanks for escort roles or extended CAP missions, etc.) airframes/wingspans had to be revised as compensation for the additional weight. Some nations' models still barely reached the required speed at the end of a carrier's runway, afaik, due to bad design or weight of ordnance, so a carrier had to be turned into the wind for quite a few a/c types.
"Aw Nuts" General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big." Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
I can see how the developers use the 20 mile hex as an abstract thing, but it does not cut the mustard.
Its tied in closely to how OP cycles are too fast in this game.
Here in the game you order launch and in fifteen minutes -its off.
At 20 knots you wont go out of the hex true.
real life
You are steaming east at 16 knots, with a full strike of 18 fighters, 12 Kates, and 18 Vals
A sighting is reported
This takes 5 minutes to be digested, plotted, and an attack ordered.
5
Wind is from the North, at 5 knots -its a lovely day.
The order to turn the entire task group has to be relayed to the entire fleet by light, and execute is given at 3 mins
8
Execute turn
The fleet turns.
Been in a large task force with lots of big ships?
Give yourself 3 minutes minimum to sort it out, if you have to turn 180 it will take ages!
11
Order 20 knots. A kate will need a lot more -so will many, many other planes. To be safe, we need 25 knots.
To get that CV, and most ships up to 25 will take time. To 20 buggar all, from 20 to 25 a bit, from 25 to 30 quite a bit, (if boilers have to be cut in for flank -allow at least 30mins), to flank from 16 knots at least 5-6 mins
lets be generous, 3 mins to 20, 5 to 25 knots
16
the strike launches, lets allow a crack crew, 15 seconds a plane? -lets calculate at 10
thats 8 minutes to clear the strike
24
5 minutes to form up a single carrier?add a few for multiple carriers, and its a total of 29 minutes to get a strike away.
Now looking at that thats so far only 8 plus several turning into the wind at 25 knots, so the staying in one hex is fair.
here is where we get complicated
CAP.
You cannot recover CAP, launch CAP unless flying into the wind, this game does not reflect that.
Now lets recover the strike
24 planes survive the strike
allow 2 minutes to recover each one
thats 48 minutes, at 25 knots into the wind, thats certaintly multiple hexes.
I just cannot understand why the CV stays in the same hex after launch.
Doctrine was basic, if I launched from a CV steering west, I, the pilot had to depend that 3 hours later it would still be steaming west at the same speed. I left at point Y, it , I hope , will be at point Xwhen I return. If its not I go swimming.
That alone has to be reflected, as TF commander, if you launched -where will you be in 3 hours?, AND I am not staying here to be slotted by a SS, or that strike looking for me!
Im hard put trying to think of a situation where an entire TF steamed in a 20 mile square for 3 hrs waiting for a strike to return
No, you did one of 3 things.
Kept steaming hard into the wind to launch/recover CAP
Kept steaming hard to close the range to get the second strike off swinging as CAP demands it
Kept steaming hard to get out of Dodge.
Now I know this sounds critical, but this is a good tactical game -that could be fantastic!
tactically this game has too few options and decisions.
Spot the other guy -launch, mark time waiting to be hit.
I want to be able to launch, but have to consider
Wind
plane load(CV speeds)
turn into wind every time CAP has to land/ launch
make the hard decision -recover the strike -or keep it circling while I clear the CAP of the decks, ect, ect
Strike and flee -and let the strike fly on to Siapan.
Options -when the strike returns, intead of auto recovery, it has to circle until you clear it to land.
CAP gives 15 minute, 10 minute and 5 minute warning of fuel exhaustion -as do the strikes.
I have not expressed myself that well, but this good game could be so much more.
Thanks for the great efforts by the developers, I hope maybe for the next time we could look at these things.
big seas, fast ships, life tastes better with salt
-More Scenarios are needed - Operation Olympic and all the others from CAW1+2 [;)]
-Some randomization of scenarios is needed; so that fleet locations are in slightly different places each time; so you're not always sure once you've played the scenario a couple of times that he will always be in x location when the game starts.
-Slight expansion of Ship/Aircraft ratings etc eg, add 100 kts to cruise speed; add perhaps 3 extra levels of ratings for aircraft, ships, (e.g. firepower goes up to 10 instead of 7) etc, etc to allow more what if aircraft like the Tigercat with it's 4 x 20mm in the nose. [X(] Aces of the Pacific: 1946![&o]; or the future 3"/50 AA Guns (smallest gun that can fire a VT round, would have replaced 40mms if the war had gone on a few more years)
I just want more detail across the board. (After all, the game is supposed to be of "intermediate" complexity. As is, its one small step beyond checkers and "go fish".)
Although my initial impression from a couple of days ago was rather positive, I am now finding the game to be WAY too simple. Too many aspects of this game are "automated" or simply omitted.
When I read the description of the game, I thought (and was hoping) I would have to take into account refueling, rearming, pilot fatigue, pilot morale, altitude settings, assigning individual planes to strikes, assigning individual pilots to planes (if you have 20 pilots but only twelve operable aircraft, you should be able to select which twelve pilots get into the planes), pilot casualties (wounded pilots landing their aircraft safely, but being unavailable for the duration of the scenario), tracking crew members and not just pilots (the gunner of an SBD may have a different degree of experience than his pilot).
In addition, I was assuming that bombing and bombardment of airfields would have some impact. As is, bombardments just seem to fulfill mission objectives. (If I hit Henderson Field with 3BB's and 4CA's, there's no way it should be able to launch strikes 10 minutes later - 10 hours later maybe.) Bombing airfields with aircraft is completely pointless. It almost never causes damage (to the field or aircraft on the ground), and when fields are damaged, it seems to have no effect.
I know I am what most gamers call a "grog" and I am aware that not all gamers like detail, but if you market a game as "intermediate" in complexity, it should have at least a minimal level of depth.
Yes but. This is a Commanders perspective game so you shouldn't expect to run every aspect. You have juniors to do that.
I do agree about bombardment, however. Is the lack of damage a bug or is it reflecting reality? I don't know, but I am frustrated by it.
Cheers
Ray
I would LOVE to see some details on dogfights. We are told how many planes are lost on a strike, but how many CAP fighters are lost to escorts (and maybe even a note letting us know when CAP has shot down a search plane). It would also be nice to have an estimate of the amount of planes destroyed on the ground in a ground strike.
Just to let people know that we are reading and considering all the messages here. It's a bit too early to respond to all of them, but there are some I can answer now and and also some guidance I can give on how we are likely to approach design issues.
In general, requests for more information, where people are asking for details that the system already has or can easily work out are more likely to be possible than requests for more detail, where the whole system would have to be redesigned. Similarly requests to deny or delay information can sometimes be easily accomodated. Please note, these are general statements only, not specific promises at this stage.
For instance, the question was asked about designating SBDs for CAP. As far as I know, this was only done once or twice, on an emergency basis, where planes that were already in the air, and that would have otherwise orbited their carrier at a discreet distance were told to have a go at incoming strike aircraft.
We don't think its worth redesigning a significant part of the game to account for a chance ocurrence that had no significant effect on the outcome of a strike.
Similarly, Carriers turned into the wind all the time, to launch and recover CAP, searchplanes and ASW patrols. We see this as a routine ocuurrence which didn't affect the big picture of carrier battles. The big picture is all about how you place your forces relative to those of the enemy, and how you handle them when those relationships are established.
Carriers at War concentrates on the big picture because its more important and we believe, more fun. The abstractions that we use make the game quick and exciting to play but leave the player with plenty of tough decisions to make. They facilitate both single and multiplayer games. Our approach makes the game scale better, so a huge scenario like Philippine Sea is still eminently playable.
The CAW design philosophy also make it harder for the human player to use cheesy tactics and arcane rules manipulation to outgame the AI. In Carriers at War, you trade blows on a more or less equal basis with the AI, and this actually makes for a much better game in the long term.
