Too easy ?

[rogeur]

Hi there,

Being the owner of the original game (no, not on the apple, but atari st),
ihave bought this game yesterday because of the new looks and better game play.
So i thought. I've just played 3 scenario's and to be honest, it sucked.
Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.
Using the hour button and then strike sighting was enough.
I have many other games from matrix, but never was so disapointed .
For €47 i expected more.
But....maybe im wrong.
Do i miss something? A switch to make it more difficult perhaps?

Ty for your time

[Adam Parker]

Pearl and Wake are no shows imo. They're tuts.
 
I've got my money's worth out of Coral (which becomes easy once you grasp it) and Midway (ditto once you memorise the enemy TG's). Solomons is currently giving me a headache as the US. And I've yet to try the others believe it or not.
 
BUT it's likely I'm getting my money's worth because I've never owned the original CAW.
 
Just like I will not shell out money on the East Front/West Front re-release or Cross of Iron and I wished I'd never done so on the Harpoon or TOAW re-releases.
 
Alex has posted here that SSG is working on adding replayability features/randomness. That will change the gaming experience big time for all, I feel.

[rogeur]

I sure hope they can do that, i really want to play this game. [:)]

[MarkShot]

Well, I am playing CCAW while I wait for CAW patches.

I think I am average intelligence and can say that the game is not walk in the park. If the AI strike first, you are in for a world of hurt which only snowballs with the more you lose, the more you lose.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: rogeur

Hi there,

Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.

Have you tried as the Allies?

[flintlock]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

...with the more you lose, the more you lose.

The above reminded me of Chrétien's "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

[:D]

[Scott_WAR]

ORIGINAL: LarryP


Have you tried as the Allies?

The game should be balanced for both sides. Including multiplayer in the game, but not even attempting to make the game balanced was,..........well.......... dumb.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Just like I will not shell out money on the East Front/West Front re-release

Although not a new game by any stretch of the imagination, I wouldn't call the Matrix Campaign Series just a re-release of the old series.

There are a number of new additions.

Jason Petho

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

ORIGINAL: LarryP


Have you tried as the Allies?

The game should be balanced for both sides. Including multiplayer in the game, but not even attempting to make the game balanced was,..........well.......... dumb.

Off Topic we have the same number of posts. [:D] I haven't played as the Japanese but it seems to me from previous posts that they have an advantage. I could be 100% wrong too, just an observation and my sight may not be perfect. [;)]

[82nd Airborne]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

I've got my money's worth out of Coral (which becomes easy once you grasp it) and Midway (ditto once you memorise the enemy TG's).

un-historical, but it is worth going into the editor and adding/moving some ships around to make TG's the same number. Coral is a pretty easy one if you play it real safe and just try to prevent a PM invasion. I've also re-jigged some of the TGs in that one and made a variant that adds the Akagi. That spices it up a bit!

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Alex has posted here that SSG is working on adding replayability features/randomness. That will change the gaming experience big time for all, I feel.

great news!

[MarkShot]

Just open the manual to pages 50+. There are plenty war cards which can add randomness to scenarios:

TG_Movement (change movement orders)

Shift_TG_Location (put a TG in someplace other than its startup default)

Alter_TG_Mission (change TG's mission)

Delete_Warships (remove ships from a TG)

Transfer_Warships (move a ship from one TG to another)

So, really the power is there for a scenario designer to take a starting collection of objects (machine & land bases) and make subtle and not so subtle changes to the behavior of the scenario.

I believe there are two ways to go to achieve randomness:

(1) I think many of the war cards have probabilities associated with them. So, you can make a single scenario variant itself exhibit random force composition, location, and behavior upon startup.

(2) You can make multiple static scenario variants using the same objects but with different war cards. (Once CAW gets CCAW's ability secretly select a variant for the player to play, then this will also provide for random starts.)

---

In my inspection of some of the historical scenarios last night, #1 was done. So, players should be seeing some randomness unless that functionality is broken or the choices are too subtle to be easily noticed.

[rogeur]

So i should buy a game (caw in this case) alter it with the editor
so i can play and pay €47 for it. Im not a beta tester, im just an
simple guy who wants to play a war game.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: rogeur

Hi there,

Being the owner of the original game (no, not on the apple, but atari st),
ihave bought this game yesterday because of the new looks and better game play.
So i thought. I've just played 3 scenario's and to be honest, it sucked.
Never did read the manual, but still 3 easy wins as Japan.
Using the hour button and then strike sighting was enough.
I have many other games from matrix, but never was so disapointed .
For €47 i expected more.
But....maybe im wrong.
Do i miss something? A switch to make it more difficult perhaps?

Ty for your time

Well, I've played the game hundreds of times in all its incarnations and I would never say that its easy. There are just too many ways for your plans to go wrong. Try playing as the US in Coral Sea and see if its still a walk in the park. If you liked the original game I can't see how you could be unhappy with this version, which has the same gameplay wrapped up in a host of game and interface improvements.

Gregor

[decaro]

I played my first game as the Allies (Wake scenario) and won an undeserved Decisive Victory. I say undeserved because the IJN sank many more ships than I did; in fact, I lost the entire Saratoga TG!

I unintentionally benefited from an old UV tactic; keep your carriers in separate fleets in separate hexes so that the AI can't hit them all at the same time. This means one carrier gets "sacrificed," but the others get their strikes in and usu. live to fight another day since most of the AI's air have already been spent sinking your "sacrifice."

Apparently the only reason I won the scenario was because my transports arrived at Wake unmolested (mission acccomplished) after my other two carrier TGs successfully dealt w/the IJN surface fleets to the SW; these TGs then hit the IJN carrier TG to the NW while it was chasing what was left of the Sara TG.

It looked like the IJN carrier TG had a case of "target fixation;" it followed the remains of the Sara TG until they sank every ship while ignoring the other Allied TGs who were coming after it. This wasn't very smart of the IJN AI; after eliminating the USS Sara early on, the AI should have addressed the other Allied carriers that were attacking its surface fleets. Instead the AI hunted the Sara TG to extinction long after the Sara was sunk and its TG no longer posed a real threat.

After all, the manual says this is a Carrier War, right? So why should an intelligent AI go after screening vessels when it has real threats (carriers) to deal with?

Then again, it's only my first game.

[Blond_Knight]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
After all, the manual says this is a Carrier War, right? So why should an intelligent AI go after screening vessels when it has real threats (carriers) to deal with?

I wonder this everytime I launch a strike. Why do many of my Vals or Kates go after escort vessels when theres a carrier or two right there?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

I wonder this everytime I launch a strike. Why do many of my Vals or Kates go after escort vessels when theres a carrier or two right there?

This has been discussed before. The developer has indicated that the frequency with which strike a/c will go after escorts which contain more lucrative targets (carriers) is variable and is influenced by factors such as aircrew quality.

IMO, the frequency appears to be too high and needs tweaking, especially for dive-bombers which flew higher, faster and had a better vantage point from which to peruse potential targets.

Torpedo bombers, particularly the TBD would be more likely to bomb a secondary target because they were more exposed.

Obviously, land-based assets, particularly those of the IJA or USAAF would be at a disadvantage in this regard because they were trained to attack ground targets rather than ships.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[decaro]

This may explain the choice of targets attacked within the same TG, but doesn't explain why the AI would sink the sole carrier in a TG but continue to air attack that TG while enemy carriers are operating in other TGs nearby.

The fact that my carrier TGs were attacking two IJN surface fleets should at least tell the AI that greater threats to its carriers must be addressed, otherwise the AI isn't too bright.

[Blond_Knight]

Thats a good point about the torp bombers vs dive bombers field of view.  But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

But in Fuchida's book the US torp bombers, though wiped out, didnt seem to have any trouble locating the carriers in the Nagumo task group.

Trained, naval strike a/c were just superior in this regard to their land-based cousins. And yes, of the initial wave(s) of USN dive-bombers and torpedo-planes, ALL but a very few targeted a carrier, although a considerable number of VT never got close enough to their target to launch their ordnance. Of Hiryu's two strikes, I believe ALL of the VT and VB targeted the Yorktown. While this was but a single battle, the evidence does appear to undermine the developer's frequency of result in this regard.

This is almost off topic, but the source that you cite, the Fuchida book, has been totally discredited. And the hatchet work wasn't done by some jingoistic American out to embellish the exploits of the USN in World War 2, but rather by Japanese researchers. If you want to understand what really happened in the 1942 battles, a great place to start would be by having a mind-fart and forgetting everything that Fuchida had to say. The book is a pack of lies, by Japanese accounts.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[decaro]

I would think any dive bombers that spotted a CV would be chatting it up on the radio, so every aircraft in the strike would know there's still a high-value target, and in which direction it was going. Of course, the torpedo bombers would still have to deal w/screening vessels that get in the way of their run.

I think another problem w/the AI in my Wake game was it didn't appaer to search for my transports, but perhaps there's an algorithim for the Code of Bushido, i.e., attack battleships, not cargo.