Too easy ?

[MarkShot]

Sighting #1 - 7 ships

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Adam,

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
1. TG's do not change in composition between plays. Once you've seen the enemy's carriers within a TG comprising X ships, you know next time you play to ignore all TG's other than those comprising X ships.

I wonder if this issue exists in CCAW. As I have received reports with FOW and variable number of ships (it seems to me). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that with CAW the ship categories may be wrong but the total count will be accurate (thus IDing the particular TGs). I don't believe that's the case for CCAW. Ship counts vary from one spotting report to the next.

So, have I correctly understoond this issue vis-a-vis CAW?

Thansk.

I've been reading this differently. Albeit, with absolutely no help whatsoever from the developer. Based solely on observation, it'd appear as though the game has "misinformation" modifications for all sorts of things, sightings included. I suspect that among these are friendly ships and aircraft that are reported as hostiles. Like so many things, a more thorough documentation of these details is sorely lacking.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[martxyz]

Well,

referring to an ill-judged late night-entry I made earlier, I suppose that if you're going to be both rude, and ignorant in public, it's only right that you apologise in public. I over-reacted in a discussion about the AI in the game, and peoples comments about it.  Having re-read my rather surreal entry this morning, and cringed, I just thought I'd apologise if I offended anybody by being a complete plonker.

Do me a favour fellas, and don't rub it in.

Cheers,

Martin

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I wonder if this issue exists in CCAW. As I have received reports with FOW and variable number of ships (it seems to me). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that with CAW the ship categories may be wrong but the total count will be accurate (thus IDing the particular TGs).

Yes. Want to find the Jap carriers at Midway, look for a TG with X "ships". Every time it's spotted the TG will always have "X" ships until some are sunk/break off for damage.

Should a TG go out of sight during a day and be re-acquired, "X" ships will still show but its spotting label may change eg: from "Able" to "Fox". It's easy to put 2+2 together.

In the old CaW it also looks easier to discern spotter, sighting course and sighting speed. In the new CaW one has to toggle search planes off to select TG's under them, click the TG, click an empty area of the map, click another TG to bring its info up.

I do note a hidden feature in the new CaW. Do the above steps and a TG may reveal some really hard to see, dark grey doughnut reticles that I think, indicate previous spottings that day. Why these have to be hard to see and the same color as storm clouds I do not know.

Also why sighting course, sighting speed, spotter ID and spotter origin etc., can't all be shown in the opaque TG pop-up, I also cannot fathom.

No, I'd much rather see a human communication "Flat Tops!" for a sighting report. Ship numbers reported should be approximated based on spotter quality, weather, time of day, random error and prior confirmation. I'd only allow the TG ship type graphic to appear after multiple confirmations or prosecution of strike in which a leader is able to successfully roll for communication back to base (I representing his not being "bounced" beforehand.

[MarkShot]

Adam,

Forgive me for being slow and having trouble connecting the dots, but given the screens I posted above and your comments, I can only conclude that the problem which you are refering does not exist in CCAW. As the CCAW screen shots showed, total ship count varied over three different sightings for a period of 15 minutes. In fact, I just checked this myself in CAW and ship count reminds a constant across all sighting reports of a formation always. It looks like a small simple programming problem which someone made. (Posted below to illustrate.)

One other issue difference which I will point out between CCAW and CAW is that it appears to me that contacts in CCAW age out (off the map) much quicker. In CCAW it looks like 4 hours after dusk the contacts age out. In CAW, this appears to 8 hours after dusk (almost until sunrise). Additionally, CCAW only shows the two most recent contact reports as opposed to every report.

[MarkShot]

Able 1 - 5 ships

[MarkShot]

Able 2 - 5 ships

[MarkShot]

Able 3 - 5 ships

[MarkShot]

Both games seem maintain a distinct contact ID for each group even when the groups are in close proximity, contact is lost, and the weather is bad. I would imagine that in real life this was not that easy to do.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Some comments ...

Finally, folks have commented on AI TGs obviously ignoring some specific human TGs. That may not be the AI at all, but simply the scenario design. In the warcards, it is possible to configure how a TG will address specific types of enemy formations it finds in the area and it is also possible to set up something similar for enemy TGs that suprise you in the local area. So, failure of an AI TG to attack an invasion force could simply be that it is not scripted in the scenario for the AI TG to target such a force.

OK, but as CV TGs are the greatest threat to the AI's CV TGs, then maybe a general boolean expression for C@W is in order, i.e., If SBDs, TBFs, Kates, and/or Vals = True, then stop whatever you're doing, launch search planes and find their carriers!

That should be easier than having to play around w/all these war cards.

[alexs]

Hi guys,
I'll check into this issue of sightings always having the same total number of ships.

[Scott_WAR]

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi guys,
I'll check into this issue of sightings always having the same total number of ships.

Finally, an SSG employee who is actually going to look into something instead of telling us we are wrong. Thank You.

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi guys,
I'll check into this issue of sightings always having the same total number of ships.

Finally, an SSG employee who is actually going to look into something instead of telling us we are wrong. Thank You.

Alex is OK.
I reported a couple of bugs in the editor, he told me he found them and that they will be fixed in the next patch.
I'm confident that other issues will be fixed in time as well.
On replayability, the warcards for TGs may be too similar re patrol areas. At least the ones I've looked into.
This should be easily fixed by changing the hex coordinates for alternate patrol areas.
But it looks like all TGs will start the scenario from a fixed location unless I'm missing something.
The warcard system is somewhat complicated so it is hard to dissect the various threads, at least for me [:)]

[MarkShot]

I have not done an extensive analysis of the scenarios; just cusory. However, I think you are right that the capability to change the initial starting location of TGs is not used (just the options for patrol areas and actions).

The whole warcard system may have well be a stroke of scenario design genious 15 years ago. However, in today's modern age it is more a clumsy scenario scripting language that might have benefited more by using standard structured programming language concepts (loops, blocks, cases (random selector), conditionals) than this notion of thread in and thread out.

All thread in and out is --- just a construct for generating random object behavior by assigning chances to various code paths. I suspect that given the name of the system "war cards" and its relative computer science awkwardness that it must somehow represent the evolution of some board game concept of 15 years ago.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Adam,

Forgive me for being slow and having trouble connecting the dots, but given the screens I posted above and your comments, I can only conclude that the problem which you are refering does not exist in CCAW.

Well Mark, that very well may likely be the case [:D]

I don't know what the screen shots you've just posted, reveal with regard to this phenomenon.

However, in CaW 2007 at Midway if you want to find the Jap light carrier Hosho, look for a TG with 4 ships.

Eg: You spot a TG and it's called "Able". It shows 4 ships. you know from playing the scenario before that the Hosho is in a TG with 4 ships. The spotting report shows 1 carrier and 3 destroyers. A second spotting report shows 4 cruisers. Another spotting report shows 1 carrier and 3 cruisers. Every spotting report of "Able" will show 4 ships. You pretty much guess that this TG contains the Jap light carrier.

The TG goes out of sight or night falls. The next day you spot a TG called "Baker". Guess what? It contains 4 ships... yadda yadda.

The main thing is, you ALSO know that this is NOT the Jap main carrier force because its TG contains 12 ships. (Don't worry someone posted this spolier before I even got to the scenario for the 1st time). Thus when you spot TG's with 4 ships, 8 ships, 6 ships, 5 ships... you won't want to launch at them because you know you need to find the TG with 12 ships.

And a spotter reports TG "Charlie", you guessed it, with 12 ships. [8|] It will always be reported as 12 ships and it won't matter after that, because you know you better launch your strike, as that's likely the enemy TG you want, even though there may be one other Jap TG in the sceanrio with 12 ships...

I think Alex is doing a good job tracking all this down but Mark, one does wonder, was CCaW designed better or is there just a big glitch in CaW with the spotting routine that we didn't even know about till now?

Even if Alex does find a fix though, it will only be a partial help, because the time will come when we'd like to see the Jap carriers appear in a TG of 8 ships just to keep us on our toes. But we know from his posting here, that he is looking at adding randomness too.

Keep on it SSG. There's a good game here.

[MarkShot]

What I posted showed that the problem only exists in CAW and not CCAW.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

What I posted showed that the problem only exists in CAW and not CCAW.

So it's either a CaW 2007 bug or design decision.

I hope it is a bug but I'm pretty p'd off if none of the playtesters caught it as it is a "right in your face why should I play this scenario again?" issue. [8|]

Battleship has more FOW!

If it is a design decision, yes, please change it SSG and please keep looking at anything else that adds FOW to this game predicated on search and destroy.

[Scott_WAR]

Honestly, between this major issue, and the major issue with multiplayer, one wonders............... Does SSG need better testers, or did they not listen to their testers? Either way somebody really dropped the ball.

Now, if its a design choice, and NOT a bug, then thats just sad. Why would you purposely make the newer version inferior to the old version?

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Honestly, between this major issue, and the major issue with multiplayer, one wonders............... Does SSG need better testers, or did they not listen to their testers?

We are the testers. Hope they're listening...

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Honestly, between this major issue, and the major issue with multiplayer, one wonders............... Does SSG need better testers, or did they not listen to their testers? Either way somebody really dropped the ball.

Now, if its a design choice, and NOT a bug, then thats just sad. Why would you purposely make the newer version inferior to the old version?

Don't blame the testers. I don't believe that they got their hands on the game that we've been playing before it was released. Way up the thread list, I suggested that the major focus of what testing did take place was stability testing for multi-player. While not intending to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe that Chris Merchant has confirmed as much.

As owners of the game, our immediate problem is trying to sort out bugs from features, trying to read the mind of the developer, as it's nature is so completely unknown to us. The holes in our understanding of what's going on with its different processes are just that substantial. Ouija board, anyone?

And it doesn't help when reps from the developer (Gregor) keep(s) showing up and pointing out to us that he (SSG) sold a bazillion of these things "back in the day," and that we should trust them about this or that element of a design that is so demonstrably untested and undocumented.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)