Carriers at War

[Ken7]

Anyone waiting for this game as much as I am??? I want it like yesterday. Now do we bring up the bombers and load em on deck or do we bring up the fighters and reload them?? Whatcha think Fuchida?? [:D]

[invernomuto]

I am waiting for this release from Matrix. It could be really a good game. 

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Ken7

Anyone waiting for this game as much as I am??? I want it like yesterday. Now do we bring up the bombers and load em on deck or do we bring up the fighters and reload them?? Whatcha think Fuchida?? [:D]

I for one am ready for the wait, even long, especially if SSG decides to improve the game, for example in the way CV groups behave after having launched a strike.

[EricRJones]

I'm so excited for this game. I own every edition of the original, including the Commodore 64 version. I think I memorized the liner notes for the C64. I remember the discussion in the notes of how constraining working with 64K was whenever I worry that the newest games won't run on my current machine with 1.5GB!

I spent hours researching and designing a scenario for the old CAW involving an attack on the Panama Canal locks. It was based on the battle described in David Downing's The Moscow Option (see http://www.amazon.com/Moscow-Option-Dav ... 185367463X). Among other things, I got to use the USS Ranger graphic! Since land structures were pretty abstracted (I'm not sure you could get VP for damaging them), I created the Panama Canal locks as carriers that couldn't move. It actually worked OK. Any hope that I won't have the use that work around in the new version?

[Jorm]

[/quote]
I for one am ready for the wait, even long, especially if SSG decides to improve the game, for example in the way CV groups behave after having launched a strike.
[/quote]


What would you have done differently ?
I saw some discussion about people wanting the task force to move to a new "recovery" location.
Im intereted to know how it was done in WWII. Ive not been able to find any information on it at all. I dont think modern carrier operations can be used as an example as navigation aides are vastly superior today as compared to 1940's.
If any one can direct me to some info on it i would love to have a look

thanks
Paul

[David Sandberg]

ORIGINAL: Jorm

I for one am ready for the wait, even long, especially if SSG decides to improve the game, for example in the way CV groups behave after having launched a strike.

What would you have done differently ?
I saw some discussion about people wanting the task force to move to a new "recovery" location.
Im intereted to know how it was done in WWII. Ive not been able to find any information on it at all. I dont think modern carrier operations can be used as an example as navigation aides are vastly superior today as compared to 1940's.

I decided to take a look at what literature I have on hand to see if I could glean some clues about WWII carrier ops in this regard. I've found several vague references to carrier task forces being expected to continue on a set course while their aircraft are off on strikes (in particular, Nagumo's First Air Fleet maintaining a course while his Midway strikes were underway, as described in Gordon W. Prange's "Miracle at Midway"). However, I did find one explicit and authoritative reference:

"There is also the classical naval requirement that returning aircraft have a sufficient fuel margin to find their carrier. Although pilots are always given an expected carrier position, there must always be a considerable allowance for error: the aircraft may return early or late, the carrier may have to maneuver unexpectedly given wind and weather between her launch point and her expected recovery point, and she may even have to evade enemy attack." - pg 91, "Carrier Air Power" by Norman Friedman

I should note that the quoted text wasn't describing WWII aircraft carrier ops specifically, but was rather a general comment about carrier ops. However, I think it is safe to say that the comments are meant to apply to WWII ops as much if not more than any others, given the description of these requirements being "classical"; also, because the next sentences following the quote proceed to discuss the effects of this requirement on pre-WWII aircraft, as well as WWII-era beacons related to these issues.

I think this tends to support my earlier proposal (from another thread) that it would be a far better simulation of reality to have a course and perhaps a speed for the task force locked in by the user as part of the set of strike parameters. Indeed, I think it would be quite sufficient even to omit speed entirely and just set the TF's course during the strike using a set of eight arrows (for the eight main compass points) and a center button for the player to use if/when they do in fact want to hold the fleet in place during the strike for some reason (i.e., mirroring the old CAW behavior).

[NimitsTexan]

ORIGINAL: Jorm

I saw some discussion about people wanting the task force to move to a new "recovery" location.
Im intereted to know how it was done in WWII. Ive not been able to find any information on it at all. I dont think modern carrier operations can be used as an example as navigation aides are vastly superior today as compared to 1940's.
If any one can direct me to some info on it i would love to have a look

thanks
Paul

When a strike group was launched, the pilots were given a "point option" where the carriers were supposed to be. About half the time, though, USN pilot would arrive at point option only to find their carriers missing. If they were close enough or high enough, they could use their Y/E devices to home in on their carrier. Otherwise it was either best guess ot head for the nearest land. This explains, in part for example, how 75% of the Hornet strike group at Midway (sans VT-8) either ditched or landed at Midway without ever finding the IJN carriers.

Having carriers stop while strikes are in the air is tantamount to a surface combat sim forcing its ships to stop movement every time either one fired its guns or torpedos.

[David Sandberg]

ORIGINAL: NimitsTexan
Having carriers stop while strikes are in the air is tantamount to a surface combat sim forcing its ships to stop movement every time either one fired its guns or torpedos.

Yes, or perhaps even worse, for several reasons.

A strike can be aloft for a couple of hours, and if the carrier task force is spotted while "anchored", that spotting report gives the enemy 100% accurate knowledge of the task force's exact position for far longer than would be the case in reality. Imagine if at Midway, Nagumo's carriers would have been anchored to a single spot while their Midway strikes were underway (that's when U.S. scout planes spotted them). The subsequent U.S. strike, which in reality had to search around for a while to find Nagumo, would have been able to go directly to him without error. Good for the U.S. side, but not realistic.

Furthermore, a surface group of fast Japanese battlecruisers (like what was also present at Midway) can move at better than 30 knots. That means that such an enemy surface group at a range of over 60 nautical miles can close the range on that overly-accurate scouting report and launch a surface attack upon a carrier task force while it is "anchored" to await the return of its strike. Furthermore, in original CAW the carriers could attempt to withdraw from surface combat, but even if they manage to do so, since they cannot move while "anchored", a few minutes later another round of surface combat would ensue with the same units on both sides (i.e., rendering withdrawal of carriers next to useless).

CAW came so, SO close to being an incomparably great game in its original incarnation. The main reason I stopped playing it was because of this "anchored while airstrike is aloft" behavior, and the various unrealistic things that resulted from it. I know that Gregor from SSG said he never had these problems himself while playing the original game, but I don't see how that can be the case when I encountered them to one degree or another in the majority of the many CAW games I played. And the more I've remembered about what it was like to play the original CAW, the more I'm thinking that I may not even be inclined to check out a new version if it doesn't at least attempt to address this single issue.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jorm
I for one am ready for the wait, even long, especially if SSG decides to improve the game, for example in the way CV groups behave after having launched a strike.

What would you have done differently ?
I saw some discussion about people wanting the task force to move to a new "recovery" location.
Im intereted to know how it was done in WWII. Ive not been able to find any information on it at all. I dont think modern carrier operations can be used as an example as navigation aides are vastly superior today as compared to 1940's.
If any one can direct me to some info on it i would love to have a look
thanks
Paul

Well, just look at tactical maps of the Battle of Midway, Great Mariana Turkey Shot, Coral Sea Santa Cruz Islands battles for example, and you'll see that Carrier Groups kept moving, not necessarily straight ahead, while their planes were in mission.
There were also occurences of the Strike being sent at the very limit of their ranges, and the CV Task Groups steaming in the direction of the sent strike to make their return travel shorter.

[cyberwop36]

Wow!! That is unrealisticly crappy, very gamey. I never played the original, but you'd think that part of planning a carrier air OP would be setting a recovery point. Or they would automaticly fly home like in Great Naval Battles which is also gamey.

I was looking forward to being a CV Taskforce commander making tactical decisions. Turning my carriers into the wind to launch and fighting off counter strikes and getting to recover my aircraft.

What do your cv's do when you launch a strike? Sit completely still [0 knots]? THAT would be a deal breaker for me.

[David Sandberg]

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
What do your cv's do when you launch a strike? Sit completely still [0 knots]? THAT would be a deal breaker for me.

Yes, unfortunately, that's exactly what happened in the original CAW. But I really do have faith in SSG can address this pretty quickly, if they choose to. And as I said earlier, the original game was SO good except for that one issue that, if they can just address that one issue, they'll have an instant, timeless classic on their hands (IMO) ... and a guaranteed purchase from me at least!

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
What do your cv's do when you launch a strike? Sit completely still [0 knots]? THAT would be a deal breaker for me.

Yes, unfortunately, that's exactly what happened in the original CAW. But I really do have faith in SSG can address this pretty quickly, if they choose to. And as I said earlier, the original game was SO good except for that one issue that, if they can just address that one issue, they'll have an instant, timeless classic on their hands (IMO) ... and a guaranteed purchase from me at least!

It's not that the CV sat at 0 knots, it's just that the icon of the Task Group stayed in the same hex for the duration of the mission.
I think that the CV were assumed to steam their set speed, but they stayed in their hex.
That is, if they were attacked, they were not sitting ducks, they were maneuvering, but it is true that when Surface combat was initiated, they escaped, only to get caught 5 mn latter, to escape (maybe) again, etc...

That was the thing that I hated in that game, that was on all other aspects, the best you could find at that time

[David Sandberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
What do your cv's do when you launch a strike? Sit completely still [0 knots]? THAT would be a deal breaker for me.

Yes, unfortunately, that's exactly what happened in the original CAW.

It's not that the CV sat at 0 knots, it's just that the icon of the Task Group stayed in the same hex for the duration of the mission.
I think that the CV were assumed to steam their set speed, but they stayed in their hex.
That is, if they were attacked, they were not sitting ducks, they were maneuvering, but it is true that when Surface combat was initiated, they escaped, only to get caught 5 mn latter, to escape (maybe) again, etc...

Well, yes, that's true. One could say that the carriers were steaming at full speed in a tight circle around their anchor point. The "anchoring" at least didn't affect their ability to dodge enemy fire in tactical combat. Still, from an operational perspective, sailing at full speed in a tight circle around a single point ends up being essentially the same thing as sitting still, and the operational effects of that problem were what I was driving at.

From your post, it seems that I wasn't the only one who encountered the "nearly infinite loop of surface engagements" issue in the original CAW, after all.

[Froonp]

No you weren't the only one [:D].
Maybe I was too reckless, and went too near of the enemy, but I often had this Surface Combat problem.

[Grotius]

I never played CAW, but I do agree with those of you saying that CVs should have the option to move after they launch their planes, as they did in real life -- and not just to move around in circles in one hex.

But the designers may not see this request buried in this thread, whose title makes no mention of post-launch behavior. Perhaps one of you should start a new thread to get their attention? I'd do it but I don't know the original game at all.

[David Sandberg]

I'm not opposed to having a separate thread started about this topic, but it was already brought up to and discussed with SSG reps in the stickied thread at the top of this forum.  And there aren't such a large number of new posts in this forum that this discussion is likely to be overlooked, in my opinion.  So I'd just worry that starting a separate thread for it at this point might be viewed as overkill.

[Jorm]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I never played CAW, but I do agree with those of you saying that CVs should have the option to move after they launch their planes, as they did in real life -- and not just to move around in circles in one hex.

Hi Grotius

Do you have any reference or info that says what the carriers did after launch ?
Im very interested in this both from a gaming and a histroical point of view
CAW was probably one of the best of the carrier games, but this seems to be a very imoprtant aspect of carrier operations that may not be modelled well in the game.


thanks
Paul

[Jorm]

[/quote]


From your post, it seems that I wasn't the only one who encountered the "nearly infinite loop of surface engagements" issue in the original CAW, after all.
[/quote]


I had this same issue as well, the constant tedious evasion in surface combat, it happened with merchants as well in game.
I recall SSG's response or justification at the time was along the lines of fleeing ships in a group would disperse/break-up/go in different directions and the attackers could only follow a few.

The surface combat resolution was as i have descibed it in a previous post " tedious and clinically dull". I imagine it was done that way due to limitaions of the game engine at the time.

Its looking very much like much of what is new with this itteration of CAW is some nice graphics. ah well

[cyberwop36]

ORIGINAL: David Sandberg

I'm not opposed to having a separate thread started about this topic, but it was already brought up to and discussed with SSG reps in the stickied thread at the top of this forum. And there aren't such a large number of new posts in this forum that this discussion is likely to be overlooked, in my opinion. So I'd just worry that starting a separate thread for it at this point might be viewed as overkill.

Well I read the sticky and they said no way, no change, and no reply to your last suggestion. Maybe they are concidering it?

What is the hex scale of the game? How much cruising range are you losing during the flight of your aircraft? It really takes away a lot of tactical creativity and it's not how the battles were fought. I didn't play CAW but in Great Naval Battles 3 your ac automatically homed back in to your TF and if they ran out of fuel to bad. I believe each flight of ac had a range circle and you tried to stay in it. But GNB3 wasn't hex based.

Please give me some info. With the hexes does it play out more like WitP or tactically like GNB3.

I'm really looking forward to this game but freezing my carriers while I have a strike in the air maybe a little to beers and pretzels for me. I was hoping to be a Halsey TF commander but if I can't move my forces in a somewhat realistic manner this game may not be for me.

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
What is the hex scale of the game? How much cruising range are you losing during the flight of your aircraft? It really takes away a lot of tactical creativity and it's not how the battles were fought. I didn't play CAW but in Great Naval Battles 3 your ac automatically homed back in to your TF and if they ran out of fuel to bad. I believe each flight of ac had a range circle and you tried to stay in it. But GNB3 wasn't hex based.

Please give me some info. With the hexes does it play out more like WitP or tactically like GNB3.

I'm really looking forward to this game but freezing my carriers while I have a strike in the air maybe a little to beers and pretzels for me. I was hoping to be a Halsey TF commander but if I can't move my forces in a somewhat realistic manner this game may not be for me.

CAW is not hex based!

Please have a little restraint. The original game was better than good and SSG will not let this iteration be bad.

I can't understand folk who take an issue like this, game unseen, and project "B&P" and "not for me". For goodness sake give the developers time to get the game out, get some user feedback, get some reviews, them make your decision. It may not be for you, but you don't know that yet! You don't even know that it's not hex based. [;)]

I'm sure you will like it. serious wargamers loved the original.
Cheers
Ray