carrier battles kickstarter for pc

Started by Grim.Reaper, November 01, 2018, 03:52:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Silent Disapproval Robot

#105
I'm strong!  I can kick!


The_Admiral

#106
Quote from: MengJiao on June 10, 2020, 08:39:37 AM

About the floatplanes: they show up on Japanese search displays -- why not on American search displays?  All the same...its nice that somebody is working on this topic -- it can use plenty of exploration.  And...more about floatplanes.  At one point a US task force feared it had lost some of its floatplanes, but a few days later they found them.  They had landed on the water, rigged sails and were voyaging to Australia from the Coral Sea.

My take about that USN floatplane story, if I may.

USN floatplanes seem to have been a pain in the butt ever since carrier wargames became a thing. It seems Cyril in this game (from what I read) decided to keep them somewhat out of the picture, and so did John Tiller and his team in Naval Campaigns: Midway. Can't blame them for that. Their doctrine for search duty was woefully inadequate, and as Mengjiao said, the few times it was attempted the result were lackluster, if not scandalous. Carrier scout squadrons are the eye of the fleet, and should be the counterpart to the well-drilled cruiser scouts used by the IJN, used from ships that sometimes were actually built with that very role in mind (i.e. the Tone sisters).

Still, we will include them in our own game, for a few reasons. In my view this overall "rejection" of the VOs as useful units game design-wise within the frame of a carrier battle stems from the fact that most games, whether they are tabletop or computer ones, usually don't include as a task for the player the management of the kind of missions they would excel at, and were used for. Most notably, inner patrols (basically air ASW) and rescue for instance.

In the first instance, they are a fine replacement for carrier planes when these need to be released for offensive or scouting duty (although they have short legs and are definitely limited to inner/intermediate perimeter patrols) while in the latter case, most games just don't simulate aircrew rescue, and as such suppress any need there is for this vital task. Although it is true that the USN would always use a ship rather than a plane when possible and range permits, sometimes you need a floatplane to fly guard over the aircrew in the drink and guide the rescue, whether it relieves a carrier plane or makes the discovery itself. If the state of the sea and the size of the crews allows it, they are also perfectly capable of making the rescue themselves. Knowing intensive air ops are incoming in the vicinity of the carrier, you will be encouraged by our game system to keep some of the floats in reserve for this sort of duty if you want to get the points & the satisfaction associated with efficient sea or coastal rescue of valuable aircrew.

To summarize, I am convinced that once you allow them to do the job they're good at, you won't feel entitled to use them for a-historical reasons, and designers won't feel the need to deprive you of your toys, leading to the existing feeling of mild frustration. We still have to prove our point by making a good game first though ;)

Cheers

MengJiao

#107
Quote from: The_Admiral on June 10, 2020, 08:46:00 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 10, 2020, 08:39:37 AM

About the floatplanes: they show up on Japanese search displays -- why not on American search displays?  All the same...its nice that somebody is working on this topic -- it can use plenty of exploration.  And...more about floatplanes.  At one point a US task force feared it had lost some of its floatplanes, but a few days later they found them.  They had landed on the water, rigged sails and were voyaging to Australia from the Coral Sea.

My take about that USN floatplane story, if I may.

USN floatplanes seem to have been a pain in the butt ever since carrier wargames became a thing. It seems Cyril in this game (from what I read) decided to keep them somewhat out of the picture, and so did John Tiller and his team in Naval Campaigns: Midway. Can't blame them for that. Their doctrine for search duty was woefully inadequate, and as Mengjiao said, the few times it was attempted the result were lackluster, if not scandalous. Carrier scout squadrons are the eye of the fleet, and should be the counterpart to the well-drilled cruiser scouts used by the IJN, used from ships that sometimes were actually built with that very role in mind (i.e. the Tone sisters).

Still, we will include them in our own game, for a few reasons. In my view this overall "rejection" of the VOs as useful units game design-wise within the frame of a carrier battle stems from the fact that most games, whether they are tabletop or computer ones, usually don't include as a task for the player the management of the kind of missions they would excel at, and were used for. Most notably, inner patrols (basically air ASW) and rescue for instance.

In the first instance, they are a fine replacement for carrier planes when these need to be released for offensive or scouting duty (although they have short legs and are definitely limited to inner/intermediate perimeter patrols) while in the latter case, most games just don't simulate aircrew rescue, and as such suppress any need there is for this vital task. Although it is true that the USN would always use a ship rather than a plane when possible and range permits, sometimes you need a floatplane to fly guard over the aircrew in the drink and guide the rescue, whether it relieves a carrier plane or makes the discovery itself. If the state of the sea and the size of the crews allows it, they are also perfectly capable of making the rescue themselves. Knowing intensive air ops are incoming in the vicinity of the carrier, you will be encouraged by our game system to keep some of the floats in reserve for this sort of duty if you want to get the points & the satisfaction associated with efficient sea or coastal rescue of valuable aircrew.

To summarize, I am convinced that once you allow them to do the job they're good at, you won't feel entitled to use them for a-historical reasons, and designers won't feel the need to deprive you of your toys, leading to the existing feeling of mild frustration. We still have to prove our point by making a good game first though ;)

Cheers

   Well, in 1942 just about any kind of plane could get lost.  at least Floatplanes and flyboats (ps that is flying boats -- I've been reading too much 16th century stuff where "flyboats" were small warships) could set down and even set sail.  There are also pictures of US floatplanes rescuing so many people that they are sitting on the wings.

   And -- of course -- the US Catalinas (PY...something) were good good and well-supported and even eventually came in "Black Cat" form.  The floatplanes actually work well in Cyril's game, its just that they show up as icons on the Japanese searches, but not on the US searches.

Toonces

My gripes have more to do with the simple aesthetics and just a "something" I can't put my finger exactly on.  It's just not quite what I was expecting.

I don't mean to denigrate the game or the hard work of Cyril.  It's quite an accomplishment for one person IMO.  It's just not for me.  I'm going to refund unfortunately.

Maybe I can revisit it once MP is implemented, although that's not why I'm moving on.  We'll see.
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

RedArgo

Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on June 10, 2020, 04:31:25 PM
I backed it on KS because I enjoyed and earlier iteration of the game as an iOS app on my phone.  I'd hoped that this version of the game would've added enough to justify the jump in price but I find that it just doesn't .

I'd recommend having a look at a free-to-play browser based game called Fighting Flattops.  www.fightingflattops.com.  It's a lot of fun, it's onlinee, turn based against dirty humanz, and you can play at your leisure.

I'm currently playing an alternate history version of the Coral Sea with Royal Navy carriers instead of US.  I just sank the Shokaku but the Zuikaku is still out there somehwere and an Emily just showed up over my task force and a heavy raid is about it hit Pt. Moresby and caught me with my pants down.  CAP landed just before the incoming raid was spotted (30+ planes likely coming in from Lae) and the new CAP hasn't had time to get to altitude.

I tried this a while ago, turns out sevens years ago, time flies I guess.  I remember enjoying it until my opponent and I were both able to strike each others carrier fleets after darkness forced the CAP to land.  That kind of soured me on the game.  Not sure if that was a bug or just how it works.

The_Admiral

Well, arguably night carrier strike were a serious possibility. US carrier scout & bomber groups were trained for them to a certain extent (the Wasp air group in particular in SOPAC) and the Japanese land bases squadrons were definitely proficient in that regard early on (aka the battle of Rennell Island that doomed USS Chicago). Several times during the Guadalcanal campaign US nightime carrier air attacks were contemplated, although none were launched. On the other hand, fighters had little to no night doctrine to boot in 1942 on both sides, so it isn't too far-stretched. Still, naturally, in the best of scenarios moonlight had to play a role and collaborate with the crews - and even then, eventually, risk of getting lost was ever too high to allow them to happen in the first place.

Quote from: Toonces on June 11, 2020, 05:21:36 PM
My gripes have more to do with the simple aesthetics and just a "something" I can't put my finger exactly on.  It's just not quite what I was expecting.

I don't mean to denigrate the game or the hard work of Cyril.  It's quite an accomplishment for one person IMO.  It's just not for me.  I'm going to refund unfortunately.

Maybe I can revisit it once MP is implemented, although that's not why I'm moving on.  We'll see.

At any rate, thanks for your trust Toonces, we'll try to stay true to your expectations with TFA ;)

GJK

Some may recall but Cyril based this design on the original Victory Games' "Carrier".  In that game, PBY searches are handled rather abstractly because the game focuses on carrier management.  In it, if the "PBY" chit is drawn AND if there is a possible target within the radius of the PBY map icon that is rolled, then there is a chance that it detects that target.  Simple yet abstract. My guess is he's doing something similar here.


I did pick this one up as well, with high hopes, being such a fan of "Carrier" but it left me wanting something more as well.  In the boardgame, it gets very tense when you've searched and located a target that preliminary is reported as being enemy carriers- you scramble to get a strike group formed and launched and hopefully before any incoming attack hits you first.  I just don't get that tension with this PC implementation and I'm not sure why.  At first I thought perhaps it was because of the lack of auditory feedback (the dive bomber sound in Tiller's "Midway" is just awesome) but obviously the boardgame has none of that so it must be something more.  I haven't put much time into it however so perhaps I'll pinpoint it but it will likely come down to why PC wargames often leave me a bit dry; the computer just does "too much" for me and I feel a bit of a disconnect with the game.  I like looking up modifiers and rolling on charts to get my results- here, it's a button click and it's just done.
Clip your freaking corners!
----------------------
Blood Bowl on VASSAL - Ask me about it! http://garykrockover.com/BB/
----------------------
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-Dean Vernon Wormer

Toonces

I never did refund this.  Guess I might as well learn how to play it now!
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

steve58

#113
FYI:  On sale over at Gamersgate for $15.74 for the next 2 days.  Steam key.
Government is not the solution to our problem—government is the problem.   Ronald Reagan
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.   Thomas Jefferson
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.   George Orwell  The truth is quiet...It's the lies that are loud.   Jesus Revolution
If you ever find yourself in need of a safe space then you're probably going to have to stop calling yourself a social justice warrior. You cannot be a warrior and a pansy at the same time   Mike Adams (RIP Mike)

Toonces

#114
I was going to necro-bump this, but I see Steve did that for me.  Thanks Steve58!

Ok, so finally I'm investing some time in this game.  I guess I've been holding out for WotS or TF:A to come along and make this game redundant.  Since that never happened, and with the troubles of WotS I decided to boot CB4 up tonight and see what the game is all about.

First off, reading my impressions the last few pages, they remain the same.  I don't like the interface or aesthetics of the game.  They didn't do anything wrong, it's just not what I would prefer; they feel tablet-like.

Second, this PC game is almost an exact port of the boardgame Carrier, even down to the map which is depicted as a boardgame map on a table.  The counters, and the numbers on them, seem to be a 1:1 recreation of the boardgame.  So...this is going to play like a boardgame where the computer does all the math for you.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

There are quite a few scenarios, and within them there are some random or alternate settings.  If you consider that you can play all of the scenarios from both sides, there is a decent amount of replay.  I would really, really like a module creation/editor kit to allow player to create scenarios.  I checked the forums and didn't see that this game is mod-friendly, which is too bad.

There is PBEM multiplayer now.

The seaplanes that were so griped about earlier in this thread were released as a $3 DLC.  I went to buy it tonight and it turns out I already had it.  Heh.  It does add some additional ability to the game, but without it, the AI still sends out AI seaplanes, so I'm not sure it brings all that much other than a warm fuzzy.  Still, 3 clams is less than a cheeseburger, so.

Since this is a boardgame port, this isn't a complaint so much as what I'd personally like to see.  Admiral, pay attention here.

A lot of Carrier Battles is about flight deck management.  Like the real carrier battles, almost everything rests on deciding when to launch a strike and its composition, and timing that with your CAP flow, and what you're keeping either in reserve or for a second strike.  You have limited deck space, everything takes time, and in WW2 you can't simultaneously launch and recover aircraft.  So the carrier management is really the heart of the game.  Everything else just serves to get the player/admiral into the position to make these tough decisions.

Carrier Battles 4 does this, to some extent.  What I would really, really like to see (either modded into this game, or definitely in TF:A) is some sort of flight board that shows you, in detail, the status of what's being readied, what's on the flight deck ready to launch, when your planes like CAP are due to land, and when your strikes are due back to the ship.  This info is sort of available in Carrier Battles, but you have to decipher it from the numbers on the counters, and you have to do a lot of mental math.  I'd like to see a board with this info spelled out clearly, as it certainly would be in real life, so I can look at a glance and tell where my priorities need to be.  Do I need to let a flight SBDs ditch to get off a second strike?  Get a CAP airborne?  Do I need to cycle my CAP early to get my deck cleared early for my returning strike?  None of these appear, so far, to be intuitive with CB4.  I will say if you foul these calculations up you will pay LOL.

There's depth in this game.  I don't like the presentation.  Frankly, simply toughening up the UI, making it harsher and more gritty, would go a long way to improving the immersion.  For example, rather than doing counters and hexes, colors, clouds and rain drops, why not a simply nautical chart?  Some red lights.  Make contact reports look like hand drawings on a map.  Just make everything look more authentic.  You don't have to change the gameplay at all.  What I'm talking about is pure aesthetics that would make the player feel more like he's on the bridge of an aircraft carrier in WW2 rather than playing a tablet game.

What I played tonight I enjoyed.  I intend to keep playing.  I wish I had the ability to create my own scenarios, but it is what it is.  I wish there was modding support.  But if you think you'd like to play a boardgame to PC port of Carrier, this seems to be pretty close.
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

Toonces

Following up on some of those thoughts, re-reading my post:

When you go to launch an airstrike, the game will tell you if the planes will make it or not fuel-wise.  You can choose to shuttle bomb; launch from one place and land at another (something not easily done in Carrier Strike which was one of my show-stoppers).  And you can launch them one-way if that's your choice; the game won't stop you.

Also, if you launch beyond return range, the planes will still try to return.  You'll suffer attrition, but sometimes some pilots managed their fuel better, got lucky, etc. so even on a long extended range strike you won't necessarily lose everyone.  Same with night landings.  The game gives you an idea of the attrition, but sometimes shit happens...in a good way.  Also in a bad way if a thunderstorm rolls in while you're landing planes.  Sigh.

So you have an idea of the endurance criteria before you launch.  When they get into the landing pattern you can check who needs to land first or most urgently by selecting the landing group and checking their endurance states.  The game will cycle them onto deck in the most appropriate order, exactly like the boardgame rolls would do.  I'd just prefer to see something with more granularity on the whole process.  We don't have to move in "turns" "20-minute cycles" "hexes" and stuff like that now.  I want to see real numbers, time, and minutes.  That's what I'm hoping from TF:A.

Carrier Battles plays like a boardgame.  That is not bad.  Just understand that that is what it is at heart.
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs