Matrix Games Forums

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers. Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers. Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.

Yes, they are an old wargame company, hopefully this fact wont hurt them, and they will remember to evolve as gaming evolves. This subject is a perfect example of where the "old ways" dont work in the modern world. The internet is an accepted and expected part of PC gaming now, time to move on in to the new century.

Yes a lot of old wargamers dont/didnt play MP all that much, and yes part of the reason is because a lot of players play within the rules the games designer implemented, and those rules are not suited for MP, "twisting" them as you called it,......... which is EXACTLY the problem we are discussing. Many game developers have realized this and have started developing their games to be as good, and in most cases BETTER, during MP.

You dont see us asking for a refund because most of us have been dealing with Matrix for years, and know the refund policy. I have never wanted a refund from Matrix for any games I have bought before, and dont for this game. It has potential, and SSG has been around a long time. I'll wait and see.

ORIGINAL: sulla05
If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund? I saw one or two threads where people really didn't like the game and Matrix said they would work with them. It also looks like there are 1-100+ posts about people who are missing out on the real world because they can't stop playing.

What?? Asking for a refund on a public forum is about the most childish thing one can do. It's not like I am going to stave because of 50 bucks, it's just that I feel cheated and mislead by advertising and am voicing out my opinion here. No big deal. People "who miss out on the real world because they can't stop playing" should try playing vs other humans to see how deeply flawed scenarios they play vs AI really are. But hey, if they enjoy the game the way it is who am I to tell them what to do? And who are you to tell ME what to do?

I don't understand why do people like you even bother posting in a MP related thread. Do you play multiplayer? How many MP games have you played? Do you want to play vs me so I can show you face to face what's so deeply flawed in those scenarios? Please, if you want a MP game let me know. Otherwise go play single player and enjoy the "excellent AI".

"I did try to use house rules, and had the guy laugh at me when I asked him not to pursue my USN forces if I decide to retreat to south on the miniscule Santa Cruz map.... Know how this game ended? My damaged USN TFs did a full circle and retreated towards **NORTH** and NE thru that channel in between Rabaul and Buka!! I was running full steam towards Kwajalein when the scenario ended. Nowhere to go nowhere to hide."

C'mon, Oleg. The map edge has always been a problem as long as wargames have existed, it doesn't matter how large the map is (unless you're using a globe as your map). Look at WITP...

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
C'mon, Oleg. The map edge has always been a problem as long as wargames have existed, it doesn't matter how large the map is (unless you're using a globe as your map). Look at WITP...

I rarely have problems with edges in wargames, and I've never had one in WITP (and I played that game for bazillions of hours). Do you have CAW? This below is the map for Santa Cruz scenario. The upper (north) part has been cut off to make pic smaller, but the left, right and bottom borders of the map are as they come in the game. Notice how operationally shallow the USN positions is (TFs are in their almost-starting positions) and that it's impossible to escape/retreat towards Australia or Caledonia.

If you're playing with timid and honorable (in fact = stupid) AI it will work because AI never pursues. It just lingers in its position moving to and fro for like 50-100 miles. But if you play vs human for like 10 bloody minutes it becomes obvious how confined and flawed this setup is, and you end up cornered in the botom left or bottom right (what is in reality just an open sea).

There are only 7 scenarios in the game, and they can - fortunatelly - be playtested very quickly. I cannot for the life of me understand how could they let something SO obvious like this pass by them. Possible answer - they never properly tested MP play....

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Ok I don't want to start a flame war, but. The " developer " you are talking about is SSG, not some fly by night first game company. Please understand that SSG was the wargame company when you guys were in diapers.

'scuse me, but my experience as a customer (+player) of computer games goes back as far as such developers entire history too, almost, since I started to buy games in 1984. My first serious (since I don't count hot-seat or split-screen sessions) MP experiences started around 1991 or 1992 on the Commodore Amiga, when we connected 2 Amigas via serial ports or when we were using phone lines/modems for PC MP-sessions in 1994. My online-multiplayer experience started around late 1995.
So, I'd say i wasn't in diapers anymore back then and that I know what I'm talking about when I share thoughts about computer gaming.

Furthermore, a customer of a given company should judge the company by the quality of its actual products on the shelfs and not by the general reputation or by achievements made during past decades. When I come across a new piece of software, fancy names or reputations, once installed, won't cloud my view when judging content or quality.

I understand the fact that developers can't release flawless/perfect games all the time, so there's a chance that a given company has somewhat weaker games/periods and strong periods. When ppl come across a weaker game, they'll be carefully watching reviews/forums for new games from the developer in question, most likely.

You should acknowledge the right of other customers to express their opinions, and, in general, you shouldn't condemn other customers (as if they just spit on your lil pic of a saint) just 'coz they won't "buy" the hype around pioneer company XY.

Also any polls I've ever seen that discounting mmpg's the amount of MP is 1-3 %. Very few grognards play MP because of the way that opponents twist the rules.

No. There are various reasons for wargamers not playing MP, the most common might be badly designed MP sections, due to either lack of experience or lack of attention from the programmers'/testers' side, amount of time which has to be dedicated to lenghty MP sessions, "tradition" to play either against the AI or vs a human player via PBEM. Besides me thinking that such polls are not representative in any way, I don't think that the shadowy existence of MP in wargames is a result of rules being twisted.

Looking at my personal gaming history and at the history of others and at the wargames' approaches, many/if not most wargamers didn't even know how to spell [:D] "online-gaming" by 1996, I'd say.
Interesting enough, there are still many wargamers who never tried any other MP-type than PBEM or hotseat games. But I guess this is rather due to reasons listed above, along with these ppl being more familiar (or in love) with turn-based games, which would be very time consuming if being played online. The ideal online version of a wargame would be a real-time game, which is still not widely accepted in the wargamer world, it's a niche within a niche-market. But these games will prevail sooner or later, imho.

The internet became a major platform for all kinds of games, and internet games, where ppl can interact with each other online in many different ways, had their share in promoting computer gaming. Online-MP gaming is widely accepted and popular in many genres these days, and companies who fail to take that into account may die eventually, or loose customers, or may have to focus on consoles (even consoles have online capabilities nowadays, though).

But even in the wargame niche-market (other) companies will come up with good/better MP sections.

If the game is that bad in your eyes why hasn't anyone posting here asked for a refund?

That's kinda ridiculous.... I don't like running home to cry on mommy's shoulder. [;)]
Seriously now, my general opinion is that developers of good/excellent games deserve to get all the support (by buying their products) they can get.
The problem here was that advertizing and spec sheets were missing a few key facts and/or were misleading. And I really did not like that part of the show.

Well, I gotta admit that my view got clouded at one point, before I could asses/judge the content, namely at the point where I had to pull out my digital wallet, as in my books the dev's name uses to stand for quality/a certain amount of content. Lesson learned.

If a developer's product is meant as "launch-platform" for future custom-scenarios, the dev should clearly state just that, at least on the spec sheets. I would totally accept/support that kinda PR policy, but may think twice b4 purchasing such a product.

Last but not least, as I already stated b4, I'll give the game another chance after patches/custom scenarios have been released.

Well you bring up valid points. I knew exactly what I was getting and I'm happy with it. From what I read it was going to be a 2007 version of CAW. But, I did have the advantage of having owned it and played it and it's descendants to death.I wasn't accusing anyone of running home to mommie. I would be the first person at the counter bithching if a product didn't live up to what it was advertised as. as a matter of fact I've done it plenty of times in this lie and hype world. It seemed that some people were just trashing it and if I felt the way that some of the posts came across I would be asking for my money back.
 
Unfortunately in this internet age you have no idea if the person that is trashing a game works for another company or is just a goat with a pencil in it's mouth trying to stir the pot. Sorry, I hope the MP problems you see are fixed.

Looks like the same map that's used in the original. Not really surprised that the scale wasn't changed. I guess it would be nice if it included Noumea & Oz but it doesn't and never has - it's always been 2/3rds Jap controlled. The better player should take the Allies in MP.

How hard would it be to whip up some generic maps and OOBs (Red vs. Blue) for the MP players? Wouldn't want to see the scenarios altered for the sake of "play balance". [8|]

Still, it's kind of fun to see the MP players with their panties in a bunch for a change...

To paraphrase what the AI players are told whenever they compain in the WitP forums:

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]

Looks like the same map that's used in the original. Not really surprised that the scale wasn't changed. I guess it would be nice if it included Noumea & Oz but it doesn't and never has - it's always been 2/3rds Jap controlled. The better player should take the Allies in MP.

Thanks for underlining my point. I never played "the original" so I could not compare, but apparently maps are just copy/pasted with no MP testing or customization. (There was no MP support in the original game right?) Not to say "modernization".

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]

LOL! [:D] Exactly... Could use it as my new sig [:D]

I haven't received my new CAW yet. I have played all the original releases of CAW, and recall this being the case with those scenarios then as well. At that time CAW had no multiplayer element to it at all.

It appears that you have a valid complaint about at least those scenarios (in as far as the map area in concerned), but I feel that you aren't presenting the complaint is the most effective manner. I've never believed in namecalling as a way to encourage someone to listen to you...

My intention for this installation of CAW is to play it while waiting for PBEM turns in WITP, so I guess that this won't be a big problem for me. The original release of CAW had only a few scenarios , but in the long run they had created scenarios covering nearly every carrier action of the war.

SSG has been around a long time, and has had a great record of supporting their product, so I'm not too concerned that this release of CAW is showing some initial limitations. I'm expecting plenty of future scenario releases to allow me keep playing this game for some time like I did the original.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

CAW is meant to be played against the AI! Think of MP as a training tool. [:'(]

LOL! [:D] Exactly... Could use it as my new sig [:D]

OMG, Oleg has killed Hamachi!!!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

a) Randomisation of TG's within historical boundaries.
 
b) Randomisation of TG ship positions in the strike screen.
 
c) Larger maps with more maneuver room.
[blockquote]
All these would definitely boost the current scenario spread.[/blockquote]
 
d) More scenarios.
 
e) Random scenario generator - AH's Flight Commander 2 had an exceptionally easy one.
[blockquote]
All these would elongate the game further.[/blockquote]
 
f) Player definable TG composition.
 
g) Smaller map scale meaning longer lasting searches.
 
h Increased realism in launch protocols and time frames.
 
i) Fixing the few bugs such as stuck strikes etc.
 
j) Adding optional FOW in combat resolution to the strike and surface combat screens.
[blockquote]
All these would guarantee a legendary game.[/blockquote]
 
My summary perception: Players like fog of war, variety, the hunt and the feeling of planning.
 

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
OMG, Oleg has killed Hamachi!!!

Well yes and no, but it wasn't intentional. Disgusted by recent MP experiences as described in this thread I wanted to abandon/unsubscribe CaW Hamachi room. It appears that I clicked one button too much and killed the whole room, as I was the original creator!! It *wasn't* my intention, I just wanted to leave the room, not close it altogether.

Anyhow, since everyone can re-create the CAW room, no harm was done. Someone obviously re-created the room, although it is significantly less populated now [8|]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

f) Player definable TG composition.

This could get a little weird. For instance, as soon as you break up the Kido Butai into six little TG's you're fouling up whatever use the game has as an historical simulation.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well yes and no, but it wasn't intentional. Disgusted by recent MP experiences as described in this thread I wanted to abandon/unsubscribe CaW Hamachi room. It appears that I clicked one button too much and killed the whole room, as I was the original creator!! It *wasn't* my intention, I just wanted to leave the room, not close it altogether.

No problem. It has a biblical quality of sorts, "what Oleg hath giveth, so shall he taketh away." [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

This could get a little weird. For instance, as soon as you break up the Kido Butai into six little TG's you're fouling up whatever use the game has as an historical simulation.

True. But if you had at the start a pool of ships that could be formed into a specified number of task forces and assign to specified 'start areas' then you'd feel like you had more control.

As a hypothetical for instance 3 carriers, 11 cruisers and 16 destroyers that may be divided into 5 (mandatory) groups and assigned to any of six (you can choose which are deployed where) 'start zones' and also assign which groups must fulfill bombardment or invasion missions.. This would allow you to assign forces to task according to your assessment of the initial situation rather than being handed fixed tfs with their objectives set already. More player control.

If you could then allow ships that had sustained more than 50% damage to be detached (perhaps with up to two destroyers as escorts if capital ships) then you'd feel like you had a historical ability that is denied in the current game.

ORIGINAL: Venator
True. But if you had at the start a pool of ships that could be formed into a specified number of task forces and assign to specified 'start areas' then you'd feel like you had more control.

As a hypothetical for instance 3 carriers, 11 cruisers and 16 destroyers that may be divided into 5 (mandatory) groups and assigned to any of six (you can choose which are deployed where) 'start zones' and also assign which groups must fulfill bombardment or invasion missions.. This would allow you to assign forces to task according to your assessment of the initial situation rather than being handed fixed tfs with their objectives set already. More player control.

Yes, options like these would greatly enrich the game, not only in MP. Perhaps the best example of the rigidness of the current system is the Coral Sea scenario - ironically, one of perhaps two scenarios I haven't found any serious game breaking problems with. The Shoho - we know how stupid it was to put this small indefensible CVL in the separate TF. It was a disaster waiting to happen. In CAW we "know" that USN waits for us NE of Midway so we can avoid bombing the island and prepare for CV knifefight right away (something that historical Japanese didn't know) but are not allowed to form our own TFs. Go figure.

However, this is a design decision and as such understandable. Still, in a game design filled to the brim with "player can't do that" stuff, some liberty could go a long way.

I know PoE advocates introducing certain "doctrinal elements" in the game, to give more "national (or historic) flavor" to the game. I am undecided on this because some of PoE's suggestions could make already very content-poor and rigid product even more of a historic Powerpoint slideshow, and less of a game than it is now (and it is already too Powerpoint-ish for many a wargamer's taste).

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I know PoE advocates introducing certain "doctrinal elements" in the game, to give more "national (or historic) flavor" to the game. I am undecided on this because some of PoE's suggestions could make already very content-poor and rigid product even more of a historic Powerpoint slideshow, and less of a game than it is now (and it is already too Powerpoint-ish for many a wargamer's taste).

Nah, I just want some stuff put in that will help balance the game. When I play as the 1942 Japanese/AI, I simply crush the Allies.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)