Matrix Games Forums

Without the full campaign of the war no way...

Just like the original, this release of Carriers at War is more of a tactical game.  You play the commander on the scene.

Tony

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Without the full campaign of the war no way...

The Scene: Waters off Midway, June 4th 1942

Worried Junior Officer: Jeez, Admiral Fletcher, the whole Japanese navy is out there somewhere! Aren't you worried?

Admiral Fletcher: Heck no, son. I know the real victory in the Pacific will be won by our overwhelming advantage in material, as embodied by the new fleet carriers that are even now being built. The Battle of Midway is a mere detail, and bound to be dull and unexciting compared to the struggles of Rosie the Riveter and all the other folks in the shipyards and factories of our great country.

Gregor

Lol...

What no coffee-spewing emoticon? Fine, just a hearty LOL for Gregor, then. [:)]

Heehee! Well said, Adm. Gregor.

ORIGINAL: tigercub
Without the full campaign of the war no way...

At this scale... ??

For the full war campaign, buy War In The Pacific. For an in-depth look at particular carrier battles, buy Carriers At War.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

For the full war campaign, buy War In The Pacific. For an in-depth look at particular carrier battles, buy Carriers At War.

Well, the old Carriers at War were far from REALISTIC per-say in all honesty, they were more focused on user-friendliness rather than being super-historically accurate, if you want a REALLY accurate in-depth look at carrier battles, I recommend Grigsby's old Carrier Strike game+addon.

ORIGINAL: Gargantou
Well, the old Carriers at War were far from REALISTIC per-say in all honesty, they were more focused on user-friendliness rather than being super-historically accurate, if you want a REALLY accurate in-depth look at carrier battles, I recommend Grigsby's old Carrier Strike game+addon.

I wonder why you say that, about CAW being far from realistic. What was not realistic particulary ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Gargantou
Well, the old Carriers at War were far from REALISTIC per-say in all honesty, they were more focused on user-friendliness rather than being super-historically accurate, if you want a REALLY accurate in-depth look at carrier battles, I recommend Grigsby's old Carrier Strike game+addon.

I wonder why you say that, about CAW being far from realistic. What was not realistic particulary ?

I have no idea how this new edition is, I was merely talking about the old series, I have both CAW1 and 2 with their respective addons, original, aswell as Grigsby's Carrier Strike, and WHEN -THOSE- GAMES are compared, Carrier Strike is definitely more detailed and realistic but also thus have a steeper learning curve.

If you don't believe me, I recommend you download and try Carrier Strike, it's very old and abandonware these days.

Also, make no mistake, I love my Complete Carriers at War collection, but when compared in terms of depth and detail, Carrier Strike definitely surpasses it, which is no surprise considering it's a Grigsby game, you have heard of say, War in Russia and Pacific War? Both those are Grigsby games.

Carrier Strike is definitely more detailed, but I'm not sure it can be said it is more realistic. 

Carriers at War plays out very realistically.

You guys do know that there is a new Grigsby carrier game coming, don't you? 

http://www.2by3games.com/devjournal/jou ... 60713.html



Tony

OMG CTB, I didn't know that, huge thanks for that link, can't wait for that!

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Without the full campaign of the war no way...

I have to agree. For me, operational games are best in campaign format, so that your surviving units get repaired, gain experience, get equipped with new planes, then head off to the next battle. This pulls you into the game more. Nothing more disappointing to me than to buy a game and find it consists of a bunch of individual disconnected scenarios.

I know one iteration of the old CAW game had a campaign, not the stupid "Complete Carriers at War" which was not complete, but the earlier version, maybe CAW1 or something. If the Yorktown was lost at Coral Sea, then it didn't appear at Midway.

I can only guess that with the effort Matrix put into making this game, the decision to build in a campaign was sidelined for whatever reasons; a shortcut that will result in my not purchasing this game.

Each to their own of course, but no versions of CAW ever had a campaign, and it never stopped huge numbers of gamers from being pulled into the game, as these message boards can attest.

Also, it was SSG who put the effort into making this game, (and there was plenty of that), plus the design decisions behind it, so please don't go blaming Matrix for those.

Gregor

@Texican or Tigercub:

Can one of you give our readers an example of a game that works for you in this regard?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

@Texican or Tigercub:

Can one of you give our readers an example of a game that works for you in this regard?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Panzer General.

Now CAW, as just released, may be a fine game, but had Matrix built a semi-linear/semi-dynamic campaign, where your surviving carriers could be upgraded, outfitted with new aircraft, and live onto the subsequent scenarios, they would have designed a hit game like no other. Imagine if after the Coral Sea battle, you are given a choice of fighting at Midway or countering enemy activity in the Aleutian Islands?

Just as cool, would be to have optional stuff happen such as the Taiho is built earlier or a certain prototype fighter squadron is made available a year early. Maybe the Akagi survives Midway and appears later with upgraded anti-aircraft guns. The possibities were endless.

But just playing out individual scenarios until it gets stale? Blahhh

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Each to their own of course, but no versions of CAW ever had a campaign, and it never stopped huge numbers of gamers from being pulled into the game, as these message boards can attest.

Also, it was SSG who put the effort into making this game, (and there was plenty of that), plus the design decisions behind it, so please don't go blaming Matrix for those.

Gregor

Maybe so, but this game begged for a campaign.

ORIGINAL: Texican

Maybe so, but this game begged for a campaign.

No, that was you. The game was begging to be played and enjoyed.

ORIGINAL: Texican

I can only guess that with the effort Matrix put into making this game, the decision to build in a campaign was sidelined for whatever reasons; a shortcut that will result in my not purchasing this game.

Interesting POV and as Gregor has already explained that this is an SSG game.

That said, CaW best fits the mold described by a friend of mine and Charles Roberts winner Gary Mo Morgan in his board game Flight Leader, when he wrote in his design notes, that Flight Leader is best viewed as "paper tactical air warfare laboratory". In it's digital form CaW IMO is a tactical naval warfare laboratory.

I'm reading Eagle Against the Sun right now (amongst others) and it describes the Naval War College in the late 1930's testing its doctrine ad nauseam by gaming Trafalgar and Jutland!

Same spirit in CaW. Will your doctrine hold up against history, can you change the outcome of each battle, what are the lessons to be learned? That's the challenge CaW is providing and given the nature of the Pacific War with its periods of rest and refit, the scenario approach fits it well.

However Texican, in the spirit of your post, as we're likely not in the business of studying naval warfare for a living we will need variety. Hence, I feel that SSG should focus on expanding the current scenario spread and more so, provide for some randomness and possibly user-input in the composition of a player's TG's and those of the AI in the scenarios currently provided.

That's where the longevity and excitement level of this game will be guaranteed IMO.