What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Anthropoid »

Carrier Force is a tactical game built on the UV engine. It will contain improvements to the UV engine, but the main purpose of the game is to fight in quasi-real time, with each turn (within the tactical mode, of course) taking 15 minutes. Players get to handle all the details of carrier operations, arming planes, spotting them to the flight deck, launch and recover them, coordinate searches and strikes, etc all in 15 minute turns.

If you wish you can play the game like UV where each turn is one day, and this is how the game will pass when not in tactical mode. But the heart and soul of the game is the tactical mode. We are also planning some naval combat stuff to take advantage of the 15 minute turn structure.

WOW! Don't know if anyone said this before in this thread, but this sounds AWESOME!!
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

Real time (pulse based time segmented) combat for PBEM will make game bog down for PBEM play.  We have day long turns now, imagine 8 turns or so per day when there's combat.......we'll see.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Ike99 »

Real time (pulse based time segmented) combat for PBEM will make game bog down for PBEM play. We have day long turns now, imagine 8 turns or so per day when there's combat.......we'll see.

No doubt.

Make sure there is an option to turn this off.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

Something is going on as Ike and I have been in accord on things lately.  [:)]
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by pasternakski »

You and Ike are good, respectable - and respectful - people, Todd. We all wrangled a little on that "other thread" when opinions got in the way of common courtesy, but it didn't get out of control, as most of the people in the discussion were reasonable.

I, on the other hand, am an unrepentant jerk. Just ask anybody who doesn't know me...

With regard to the current topic, I guess I hadn't given sufficient consideration to where the emphasis of the design is going. If it is to be centered around the RTS tactical element with the part that most resembles UV being given short shrift, I am going to have serious second thoughts about buying this. As has become my habit in recent years, I will likely hold off and listen to what all you maniacs have to say about it before jumping in - or jumping off...
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Ike99 »

You and Ike are good, respectable - and respectful - people, Todd. We all wrangled a little on that "other thread" when opinions got in the way of common courtesy, but it didn't get out of control, as most of the people in the discussion were reasonable.

I, on the other hand, am an unrepentant jerk. Just ask anybody who doesn't know me...

With regard to the current topic, I guess I hadn't given sufficient consideration to where the emphasis of the design is going. If it is to be centered around the RTS tactical element with the part that most resembles UV being given short shrift, I am going to have serious second thoughts about buying this. As has become my habit in recent years, I will likely hold off and listen to what all you maniacs have to say about it before jumping in - or jumping off...

The thing is this...I don´t rememeber anyone asking to fight the tactical battles out themselves. I think what people wanted, including me, Is the bugs eliminated in UV and it brought up to what WITP-AE is going to be. With all the added features and improvements.

Fighting the tactical battles out myself is something I can take or leave and in PBEM will 99% sure be left. Take WAY too long to get through a game for me.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

The micro management is being possibly being added because of some control freaks (not meant in an offensive manner) wanted this feature and to market a "new game" instead of breathing life into an old warhorse is probably a marketing thing with the old profit motive. 

That being said it's really important that this tactical option be just that, an option that can be toggled on or off.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Anthropoid »

Never played UV. I'm proficient with WPO and WiTP against the AI, but I'd likely get my butt kicked against a good human.
 
I've enjoyed some PBEMs with some of the TOAWIII scenarios, and Civ mods/scenarios; but I'm hesitant to commit to a PBEM for 4 or 5 years. Moreover, the thought of committing to a 4 or 5 year long PBEM in which the outcome is largely predictable (assuming opponents are roughly equally matched, else the allied player at least has enough sense to learn from his mistakes) sounds even more unpalatable. Maybe I'd actually love it, but my respect for those of you who are true WiTP PBEMers makes me hesitant to ruin my otherwise spotless reputation by committing to something I might not be willing to finish [:D]
 
I could see a WiTP PBEM using one of the short scenarios, OR if I knew one of you "maniacs" well enough to have a sense that I was not totally outclassed . . .
 
Okay so having said all that: I basically enjoy the WiTP/WPO games against the AI so far and I think I'm not alone in this regard. Not to say that we SPers are more Emportant or less than you PBEMers, but there are these two camps of us skulking about in the Matrix it seems.
 
From my perpsective, a tactical game that allowed more fine-grained exploration of the mechanics of 1940s Pacific naval and air warfare sounds delightfully fun, even if it did mean that it was not very playable in MP mode.
 
Indeed, if I had a "wish" for WitP-2, it would be for a tactical battle engine (for land, sea AND air! [X(]) that would allow you to fight "detailed battles" something like in Forge of Freedom. Keep ALL the current theatre-level detail, _with_ all the AE improvements, and ADD (meaning in addition) the tactical level as an option (as it is in FoF) and  . . . whoooooooo . . . . whatta game [&o]
 
 . . . Imagine, being able to detach companies from your battalions . . . choose the Company that has the most experienced riflemen, order them to "stalk" (command telling a unit to proceed very slowly and carefully, i.e., crawl, crouch) into those steep forest covered hills. Move your mortars into that little bald knob that is just around the corner of that escarpment from where you suspect the enemy has his machine guns emplacments dug in, set them to "tactical support" mode (meaning they are ready to support other platoons/companies when they are requested) . . . set a couple of your small depleted rifle companies to picket duty to protect the mortar squads . . . wait for daybreak, and send in a probing attack with your large heterogenous companies comprising lots of green recruits, causing the enemy to return fire and giving your stalkers a clear view of the emplacements! Call in the mortar barrage, and when it is done tell your stalkers to flank along the hill while the greens continue the frontal assault! . . .
 
That would be a description of how the tactical battle engine would work if it was modeled roughly like FoF (course you could potentially also call in close air support, reinforcements, maybe even naval bombardment all depending on what else was going on in that hex/adjoining hexes); really NOTHING like an RTS, just a turn-based strategy game at a finer-grained level of detail.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

Forget WITP and it's massiveness and WPO with it's long tedium because this is UV where PBEM is fast and furious, usually.  I've never had a PBEM go on and on forever, even the campaigns so rethink.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

Personally, I have never been a huge fan of fighting out the tactical battles in a strategic game. Especially if thet tactical portion relies on my eye hand coordinaation for success. I don't want an arcade clickfest to determine the outcome of my strategy.

I almost always let the computer resolve the tactical battles in Medieval Total War.

I picked up a copy of a game called Pacific Storm. What a mistake. Apparently somewhere embedded below the arcade action portion of the game is a strategy game. I never got past the arcade like implementation of placing me in the cockpit of a plane in teh first battle. One some gaming website the reviewer trashed the game because it had all this boring strategy stuff to deal with between the "action". Obviously the reviewer was the FPS type looking for "shoot-em-up action. I wanted just the opposite. I didn't want the success of the fights to be dependent on my skill piloting the bomber.

If the tactical battles can't be turned off and left to the computer to resolve I certainly won't be purchasing the new game.
Hans

User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Anthropoid »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Personally, I have never been a huge fan of fighting out the tactical battles in a strategic game. Especially if thet tactical portion relies on my eye hand coordinaation for success. I don't want an arcade clickfest to determine the outcome of my strategy.

I almost always let the computer resolve the tactical battles in Medieval Total War.

I picked up a copy of a game called Pacific Storm. What a mistake. Apparently somewhere embedded below the arcade action portion of the game is a strategy game. I never got past the arcade like implementation of placing me in the cockpit of a plane in teh first battle. One some gaming website the reviewer trashed the game because it had all this boring strategy stuff to deal with between the "action". Obviously the reviewer was the FPS type looking for "shoot-em-up action. I wanted just the opposite. I didn't want the success of the fights to be dependent on my skill piloting the bomber.

If the tactical battles can't be turned off and left to the computer to resolve I certainly won't be purchasing the new game.

Sorry, my previous post was very rambling. Let me simplify the key message for the true Grogs among us . . .

If you guys have not tried Forge of Freedom, you really should check it out. This is a beautiful example of what I think is the future of turn-based strategy. This game is a full-fledged turn-based strategy game, in which you control the strategic level (including political factors, unit building and training, officer assignments and promotions/demotions), but it ALSO includes a tactical battle map engine for "detailed combat" option. You can choose to never use it or to use it for every battle, or to use it for every battle but then (at any time) let the battle resolve instantly. It is ideal flexibility.

The other thing is: it is NOT, NOT, NOT in anyway like an RTS arcade game. No hand-eye coordination needed beyond slow ponderous mouseclicks [;)]

In the tactical battles, opponent forces start out on opposite ends of a 55x55 hex map of randomly generated nature (but dependent on season and province). All the brigades comprising all the Div, Corps, Army that were in the province are present, and you can move brigades around as individual units with commanders attached, you can also split brigades into two units. Units move according to their initiative and the two rival sides take turns, just like in any other turn-based strategy engine. The key to doing well here, is in NO WAY dependent on quickness, but simply on knowing your units very, very well, and understanding tactics (as they manifest in that game engine) very well.

Hopefully, what they have in mind for Carrier Force is something along these lines, and not something along the lines of an RTS "arcade" twitch fest.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

Sorry if I gave the worng impression. I wasn't trying to say that all strategy games coupled with a tactical battle resolution engine turn into arcade games or clickfests, just that the ones that do are the worst examples of the genre as far as I am concerned.

However, even if the tactical battle simulator is itself a small "strategy" game, it still makes the outcome of the strategic game dependent upon my skill and acuity as a tactical commander rather than on the abilities of the actual historical tactical commanders, which, at least to a degree from my perspective degrades both it's historical accuracy and it's historical appeal.

When I put Tanaka or Lee in command of my surface Task Forces it's the leadership abilities and skills of both I am relying on for the outcome of the encounter and not those of "little ole me". That is the most important point as far as I am concerned. If we are going to take control of the tactical battles, then of what use will the in game commanders be? As COMSOPAC I want to tell Mitscher to go out, find Yamamoto and "chew his ass"....I don't want to try to BE Mitscher.....that's a different game altogether for me.
Hans

User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

One thing is certain about CF and that is that it will not be a shoot 'em up.  I believe the control over tactical things will reflect command of the forces involved in the action in a more active way than we do now.  Still it's the length of the turns (time frame) and the effect on PBEM that concerns me the most. 

Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
However, even if the tactical battle simulator is itself a small "strategy" game, it still makes the outcome of the strategic game dependent upon my skill and acuity as a tactical commander rather than on the abilities of the actual historical tactical commanders, which, at least to a degree from my perspective degrades both it's historical accuracy and it's historical appeal.

When I put Tanaka or Lee in command of my surface Task Forces it's the leadership abilities and skills of both I am relying on for the outcome of the encounter and not those of "little ole me". That is the most important point as far as I am concerned. If we are going to take control of the tactical battles, then of what use will the in game commanders be? As COMSOPAC I want to tell Mitscher to go out, find Yamamoto and "chew his ass"....I don't want to try to BE Mitscher.....that's a different game altogether for me.
This is my concern, as well. One of the things I have faulted both UV and (to a greater extent) WitP for is that there is no clear definition of just exactly who you are within the context of the game. Still, I guess if the game is a considerable improvement on UV and you can just excise the tactical part without negative effect, I may buy it.

I've got a lot to see first, though. I'm not the "shotgun wedding" father I used to be when it comes to coughing up dough for computer wargames...
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: tocaff
Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do.
Yah, I hope so. Still, I've got a bad feeling about this. I have a recurring nightmare that I am in one of those old combo tactical-operational-strategic games where you start out in the theater commander's office, then teleport yourself to the bridge of a task force flagship, then run down into one of the turrets and boresight the cannon, then fly like Sally Field over to the deck of a carrier and climb into a fighter plane ... you know.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by pad152 »

I would have preferred War in the Med, after WITP was released I never went back to UV. Sorry to say but I have little interest in Carrier Force, I'm getting sick of the pacific theatre and would like to see a UV type game (smaller scale than WITP) in other theaters and other time frames.

With all of the improvements in the AE version of WITP, I think it will even be harder going back to UV/Carrier Force.

User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: pad152

With all of the improvements in the AE version of WITP, I think it will even be harder going back to UV/Carrier Force.

I agree with this statement, there will be no going back for me.

Retro-fitting Carrrier Force with AE improvements I do not see happening (this doesn't mean it can't).

My hopes are the team tries to create a WITP-2.


Flipper
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Anthropoid »

Don't listen to 'em Tankerace! Its a brilliant game plan! [:D]
 
I cannot disagree with the "fly like Sally Fields" analogy . . . there is a certan undeniable unreality about being able to give orders at both the theatre and tactical level, and for the purist, I suppose there is no assuaging that profanity.
 
But as far as the redundancy of "being" the assigned commanders in the tactical battles, FoF compensates in this way: Let us say you have formed up the Army of NE Virginia in which there is 1st Corps, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Divisions. 1st Corps has 9 Brigades in it, and the three Div are each fullup with 5 Brigades in each. Say for example you have Grant as a four star in charge of the Army, Meade as a three star in charge of the Corps, and two stars Thomas, Wolcroft, and Walters in charge of the three Divisions. Also say you have another 6 1 star generals assigned to some of the units.
 
When the tactical battle map is spawned, you will have all fourteen of these brigades as a separate unit on the map, and each of the 11 Generals "assigned" to one of these Brigades. Because Grant is a four star, his leadership effects will impact all the Brigades on the battlefield, Meade will influence all the
Brigades attached to 1st Corps as long as they stay within a certain distance, and each of the two stars will influence all the brigades under their Divisional command, and the one-stars will affect only the brigades to which they are attached. Generals can be unattached and reattached to alternative brigades during the course of battle. Generals have various attributes, special abilities, etc., and they confer some of these benefits to the units under their authority during tactical battles. So, the leaders abilities do not become moot during the tactical battles, but the tactical battles give a wiley player a chance to leverage their generals abilities even further. Call it unrealistic if you will, but after all it is a game.
 
Leaders also influence how units get supply, train, refit etc. during the campaign scale turns.
 
For me, if I am going to play in a fantasy land of one of these strategy games, the more multi-faceted and versatile the fantasies I can play in the better. Having a tactical engine that allows players to explore not only the implications of various decisions at the strategic level, but the pros, cons, opportunities and constraints manifest at the tactical level as a result of such tactical decisions is IMHO, a much better game fantasy than not.
 
And for those who feel the tactical level is simply too big a leap of suspending disbelief, they can (in FoF anyway) simply turn off the Detailed Combat engine, and have all battles execute as they do in WiTP: instantly, based on the stats of the units and leaders involved.
 
Hope this is more or less what you guys have planned Tankerace.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: tocaff
Give me a game that fixes the known bugs of UV, doesn't ship with new bugs, some of the features available in WITP and WITP AE and the option to turn on or off the tactical mode of the game as I see fit to do.
Yah, I hope so. Still, I've got a bad feeling about this. I have a recurring nightmare that I am in one of those old combo tactical-operational-strategic games where you start out in the theater commander's office, then teleport yourself to the bridge of a task force flagship, then run down into one of the turrets and boresight the cannon, then fly like Sally Field over to the deck of a carrier and climb into a fighter plane ... you know.

Sounds a lot like that Pacific Storm game I picke up, except in that one you start out in the tactical simulator (apparently so you can get reeled in right away with the heart pounding action). Which, of course, meant that I never even made it to the strategic game part of it before consigning the CD to the "dead games" stack.
Hans

User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
For me, if I am going to play in a fantasy land of one of these strategy games, the more multi-faceted and versatile the fantasies I can play in the better. Having a tactical engine that allows players to explore not only the implications of various decisions at the strategic level, but the pros, cons, opportunities and constraints manifest at the tactical level as a result of such tactical decisions is IMHO, a much better game fantasy than not.
To each his own. I can see why a lot of people prefer that kind of thing, and I have nothing against it. I used to feel that same way about my chances of going to bed with Tyra Banks, too (then I realized how long a line of thoroughly despicable people I would be following with that and forgot about it instead).
And for those who feel the tactical level is simply too big a leap of suspending disbelief, they can (in FoF anyway) simply turn off the Detailed Combat engine, and have all battles execute as they do in WiTP: instantly, based on the stats of the units and leaders involved.
See, this would be fine with me, except I just don't see it as being that seamless. If so, great. I just gotta see it first before I buy it.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”