Matrix Games Forums

So far I am enjoying the game but I do wonder about the way that a few things have been done.

Firstly the air attack animation. Why was the decision made to put the result of each attack (in the air sqd window in the bottom right of the screen) before the animated planes actually do their bombing runs? By this I mean you can see a darkened bomb, torpedo or destroyed aircraft, before they make their actual run. This takes away all the tension of the attack! Surely a space bar input to jump to the end of each attack would not have been hard to implement (for those who would rather skip)?
In my opinion I think this area is the most disappointing. I had visions of the planes coming in and battling their way to their target. While it would definately have been more work - here is where you get to see the fruits of your labours. Some may skip it, but there was an opportunity to make this game great and truely tense (after the tension of the hunt - which is done very well by the way).
I think a few refinements could have gone a very long way. Pull the scale back a bit so that you can see more of the approach. Incorporate defensive fighters into the mix - they don't have to be actual representations (although that would be great - just alot of work). Flak that actually comes from the ships - tracer or at least gun flashes. It's eye candy and you have no control over it, but it IS emersive.
With a greater scale you could also implement the emulation of multiple attacks coming in at the same time, or even add the weather into the combat window: the Saratoga is under cloud but some of her escorts are visible - therefore they get bombed.
Others have listed other emersive additions such as the defender knowing the hit is 'critical' or 'fuel explosion' etc while the attacker sees "secondary explosion" etc.

A few other questions:

What is the point of attacking airbases? You very rarely damage the base, when you do I have not seen any impact from the damage - either to the bases ability to mount operations or to planes on the ground. It gives away your carriers position and seems to do very little to nothing??

In the same vein you can't order surface units to bombard (unless this is a pre-planned 'job' for surface units). I take it this is just a design decision, but it would add to the flexibility of the game and also add some usefulness to surface groups other than being targets for incoming air raids. By the way, when you do have a bombard mission, does it actually do anything other than fulfill a minor mission?

This is a really great concept, and not far off (obviously opinion). Like a women with the thought of a romantic meal with candles etc that's disappointed when you text her "at pub, home late, don't need dinner", I had something a little different in my head.

ORIGINAL: wobbly

What is the point of attacking airbases?

Yeah, i scratched my head and asked myself the very same question, when I figured that it's relatively useless. Example: The B17/24 Bombers at Port Moresby should do some damage (if looking at amount of ordnance/range) to let's say Rabaul airfield, or other airbases, even if that would just mean that the japs would have to close the airport for 5-12 hours only, but it would definetly hamper CAP/search plane missions on any airport, and I'd say it hampered jap airforce efforts back then.

This is a really great concept, and not far off (obviously opinion). Like a women with the thought of a romantic meal with candles etc that's disappointed when you text her "at pub, home late, don't need dinner", I had something a little different in my head.

Haha. Funny, right to the point though. That's what I felt when I got this game, i was just too lazy to add my first impressions to my "Should I get CAW?"-thread.

Another thing being a bit disturbing is that, like u said, surface units (BB or CA groups for example) are pretty much either cannonfodder for enemy air strikes (as you cannot use them for bombardment missions elsewhere), or they are sore-eyed hunters who try to chase the ever evading enemy carrier/support groups, with limited success due to sighting rules. In the Atlantic theater, it was common practice to screen/track major enemy (naval) assets by detaching some of the fast destroyers, ships that could deliver speeds of around 34-37 knots, fast enough to track any enemy BB/CA group.

In the game, once they manage to get closer, the enemy group flees before my TG can fire ANY round. That's almost ridiculous, keeping in mind that the USN employed BBs like the Iowa (16 inch guns' range?35 km? The Yamato's range: 18.1 inch/460 mm --> 42 km/45,930 yards max.), with really long range artillery.
The German BB Bismarck sunk the british BC "Hood" and it was anything than a close range battle (Hood attacked from a distance of around 13 nautical miles) and the final rounds coming from Bismarck, before the Hood exploded, traveled 9 miles, "just" because the Hood had to try and get closer in order to score a substantial hit.

Although Gregor mentioned that USN CA-based planes didn't serve in a search plane role (what role was set for those planes.... weather obervation? [;)], rescue missions?), I don't see why 3 scoutplanes (of a BB [Iowa class]) shouldn't be able to track a crippled enemy carrier group or CA group that is trying to evade in front of my TOES, means right on the next HEX (so 120 miles away, MAX.) or even in the same HEX (=less than 60 miles) in full daylight, especially if my TG can spot things on radar. The evading enemy TGs appear as groups that turn on the turbo in order to get away (and they do get away with it :p).

I kinda like the game tho, as I used to play sub sims covering the Pacific theater, so it's pretty interesting to think about common/viable surface strategies here. CAW might need some tweaks and 1 or 2 patches, tho.

My impressions - it's a fun game which fixes the problems which made the original unplayable for me (the DOS version); and captures the eggshells with sledgehammers feel of carrier combat.

My only nitpicks:

-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 "power" for aircraft", 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]

ORIGINAL: wobbly

I think a few refinements could have gone a very long way. Pull the scale back a bit so that you can see more of the approach. Incorporate defensive fighters into the mix - they don't have to be actual representations (although that would be great - just alot of work). Flak that actually comes from the ships - tracer or at least gun flashes. It's eye candy and you have no control over it, but it IS emersive.
With a greater scale you could also implement the emulation of multiple attacks coming in at the same time, or even add the weather into the combat window: the Saratoga is under cloud but some of her escorts are visible - therefore they get bombed.
Others have listed other emersive additions such as the defender knowing the hit is 'critical' or 'fuel explosion' etc while the attacker sees "secondary explosion" etc.

Totally agree! Post that in the wishlist

ORIGINAL: wobbly

I think a few refinements could have gone a very long way. Pull the scale back a bit so that you can see more of the approach.

I had begun to post exactly something like this in the wish list.

If you mean not having the 2 sides starting so close together, yes I totally agree. That would allow for more maneuvering and more tactical decision making.

We had this exact issue when reviewing the scenarios for War Over Vietnam. Although I came on board with the project (HPS's Modern Air Power) after the WoV's release, I felt that in most scenarios the action started too close-in, so that after only a few seconds the shooting was ready to begin.

It seemed a lot of the buying public agreed and changes were made in the first patch by way of alternate scenarios to address this.

Gamers like to plan!! [:)]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Although Gregor mentioned that USN CA-based planes didn't serve in a search plane role (what role was set for those planes.... weather obervation? [;)], rescue missions?), I don't see why 3 scoutplanes (of a BB [Iowa class]) shouldn't be able to track a crippled enemy carrier group or CA group that is trying to evade in front of my TOES, means right on the next HEX (so 120 miles away, MAX.) or even in the same HEX (=less than 60 miles) in full daylight, especially if my TG can spot things on radar. The evading enemy TGs appear as groups that turn on the turbo in order to get away (and they do get away with it :p).

As far as I know, USN capital ship floatplanes were mostly intended for gunnery observation during surface battles, particularly in questionable weather and in battle conditions (such as DDs laying smoke screens preventing visual fire direction from the firing ship). Of course for the US, radar replaced that basic function before long. I think they were also used for mostly utility tasks, ferrying VIPs to shore, probably air-sea rescue of downed pilots. Some limited local search functions.

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

As far as I know, USN capital ship floatplanes were mostly intended for gunnery observation during surface battles, particularly in questionable weather and in battle conditions (such as DDs laying smoke screens preventing visual fire direction from the firing ship). Of course for the US, radar replaced that basic function before long. I think they were also used for mostly utility tasks, ferrying VIPs to shore, probably air-sea rescue of downed pilots. Some limited local search functions.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Gregor's comment, and I guess they did some research there .... But still.... my guess is that, historically, a strong/fast BB group wouldn't have passed a chance to crush a crippled enemy carrier/surface group just because it was common practice/doctrine not to (excessively) use their organic search planes. An obs plane would have been sent to keep in touch with the enemy group, imo, or, as this was the (british) practice in the Atlantic theater (at least), a destroyer detachment would have been sent to stay shoulder to shoulder with the enemy unit in question.

I played the Pearl scenario (jap side) last night, but I sent my support + screen TGs right into the harbor (after the first 1 1/2 wave of planes took out some vital ships) this time, instead of using them as escorts for the carrier group. The carrier group was not spotted once, as it kept a safe distance to Pearl.

The biggest enemy TG (with 7 capital ships [anchored]) lost 2 BBs, while my planes killed or damaged another fair amount of BBs, CAs and DDs. Since my TGs were in or near the harbor already, i could verify the amount of damaged enemy ships when the surface combat screen appeared. Then I kept withdrawing from surface battle and sent another full wave of planes to ensure the support+screen TG would meet a reduced enemy force "next time". The result was that I could kill 40 ships in the harbor, with ZERO enemy ships remaining in the harbor area (I finished wiping out the last DDs 40 minutes before the scenario ended), so a small enemy carrier group (1 carrier + escorts), coming from the south west, could be spotted steaming towards my carriers some 15 minutes before the scenario ended. Although i did not attack/target ANY airfield, enemy air activity was ridculously low/ineffective.

This shouldn't be possible, since Pearl's Forts (coastal arty) south of Hickam airfield would have stopped any attempt to invade Pearl (or any attempt to cruise back and forth in front of the port). The game has a lower level of depth than I thought right before paying for the game. I think I'll wait for forum feedback/demo versions next time, unless it's a game using the AA engine [:D].

I like the game's approach for sure, but the small amount of scenarios and missing depth (missing bombardment option, no detachable units, submarines appearing to be rather "on-lookers" [right term? :p] than serious threats), "hidden" CAP fighters, bombardment of runways/ports being useless and other disturbing things are kinda setbacks here.
Releasing a demo beforehand to get some wishlist-items for the following retail might have been a smarter approach, as I don't think that many wishlist-items make it into a patch, usually, right?

In general, ppl like giving feedback/fresh ideas, but I'm not sure if they necessarily like to do that for retail versions that do lack stuff in the options/content department, since they might feel a bit like Beta testers while still having to pay the full price. .
"Beta testers" does not refer to an imaginary amount of bugs (I only encountered 1 in CAW so far) but to content or the lack of it.

I know that the game allows for modding and custom scenarios.... still, the package did not blow me off the chair after I got familiar with the manageable amount of features.

I was just reading an account today of the Battle of Cape Esperance off Guadalcanal around midnight on October 11, 1942.  The US admiral in charge, Norman Scott, ordered his float planes aloft when he felt the enemy was about due to arrive (based on land-based air search from earlier in the day).  One craashed on landing and one ship didn't get the order and didn't launch.  The other planes searched the local area (say within about 30-40 miles of the TF) to give word to Scott when the Japanese bombardment force (his primary target) was near. 
 
The search planes found a second force landing troops nearby, but never did see the bombardment force until after the surface ships did.  First contact for the USN was by SG radar from the CL Helena, and then visual sightings by numerous ships.  Luckily the USN caught the IJN napping and sank one CA (Furutaka), one DD and did significant damage to a second CA (Aoba) at the cost of 1 DD sank (USS Duncan) and another heavily damaged (Farenholt, I believe), plus significant damage to the CL Boise.  Interestingly, it was determined that due to a manuever which placed three of the DDs between the USN and IJN cruisers when the firing commenced (at a short 5000 yards or so), the two damaged US DDs received a significant percentage of their damage from friendly fire.