Carriers At War (SSG)
Rainbow Warrior
Greetings:
I just purchased the Complete CAW on CD. Does anyone know where
any new scenarios are? I found the ones on Grognard (Midway and The
Panama Canal Scenarios). Does Novastar have any CAW scenarios?
Does Run 5 publish many?
Thanks.
Brett Holman
Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I just purchased the Complete CAW on CD. Does anyone know where
> any new scenarios are? I found the ones on Grognard (Midway and The
> Panama Canal Scenarios). Does Novastar have any CAW scenarios?
> Does Run 5 publish many?
> Thanks.
Yes, go to:
http://www.rapidramp.com/wize/
There are about half a dozen there.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brett Holman bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au
School of Physics http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~bholman/
University of Melbourne * I can't believe that I, let alone the Uni, *
AUSTRALIA * would hold the opinions expressed here. *
Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords. - Pompey the Great
Old Salt
On 26 Sep 1996 00:09:14 GMT, msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow
Warrior) gave us his/her 2 cents:
>Greetings:
>
> I just purchased the Complete CAW on CD. Does anyone know where
>any new scenarios are? I found the ones on Grognard (Midway and The
>Panama Canal Scenarios). Does Novastar have any CAW scenarios?
>Does Run 5 publish many?
> Thanks.
Sorry Mike I don't have any answers. But there will be a new
Newsgroup starting shortly called c.s.i.p.g.s.naval, you might want to
try in there too.
___ ___
_____ | | | | _____
======/ | | | | | | \======
----------------------------------------------------
\ |
\ Old....@worldnet.att.net |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rainbow Warrior
Greetings:
Well, I finished Plan Orange (8/20-24/1936). It was my first
game. I played the USN first. I barely won: 25 pts, marginal American
victory. Basically, I just stopped the invasion of Guam and let the
Phillipines be invaded.
I then played the IJN and won a decisive Japanese victory (-583
pts). I ignored Guam, invaded the Phillipines, and stopped Davao from
being resupplied. I then picked on the USN BB groups. I lost a CV and
a CVL. But, I sunk 5 BB's and 5 CA's in compensation. The IJN CV's
seem to burn nicely.
The AI doesn't seem too protect its assets very well.
I am playing the RN in Norway (4/8-17/40). It is kind of a
slaughter. The German BC's just sailed by my transports and went up to
Narvik. The Renown and the small CL/DD battlegroups were able to
gradually sink all the German transports.
It looks like playing the Germans will be tough.
The battles have been fun. However, I am not impressed with the
AI. I think Carrier Strike had a better AI.
It would be fun to set up some scenarios where the human is an
underdog - maybe a mass naval battle with the Germans/Italians vs. the
British/French/Russian navies.
Is there an upper limit to the number of ships you can have in a
scenario?
Julian Barker
In article <52gqia$h...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, Rainbow Warrior
<msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu> writes
>
> The battles have been fun. However, I am not impressed with the
>AI. I think Carrier Strike had a better AI.
> It would be fun to set up some scenarios where the human is an
>underdog - maybe a mass naval battle with the Germans/Italians vs. the
>British/French/Russian navies.
> Is there an upper limit to the number of ships you can have in a
>scenario?
>
>Mike
>msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu
>
If you have the scenario designer you can setup your own priorities etc.
One of the attractions of the game is meant to be the complete control
of the AI that is given to the player.
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
JD
In a recent article, Rainbow Warrior wrote:>
> The battles have been fun. However, I am not impressed with the
> AI. I think Carrier Strike had a better AI.
Mike,
Actually the AI is very good. When doing a scenario, the designer
assigns weighted general instructions to the units involved. What you're
looking at is actually a lousy scenario design. Given a good set of
instructions, CAW has, IMO, the best wargame AI I've ever seen.
Regards, JD
Scott D. Orr
In <VA.000001e0.00a7a910@default> JD <kb...@snet.net> writes:
>
>
> Actually the AI is very good. When doing a scenario, the designer
>assigns weighted general instructions to the units involved. What
>you're looking at is actually a lousy scenario design. Given a good
>set of instructions, CAW has, IMO, the best wargame AI I've ever seen.
And if you don't like it, you can always reprogram it (if you have the
Construction Kit or the Complete CAW).
Scott Orr
Old Salt
On Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:18:57 +0000, JD <kb...@snet.net> gave us his/her
2 cents:
> Actually the AI is very good. When doing a scenario, the designer
>assigns weighted general instructions to the units involved. What you're
>looking at is actually a lousy scenario design. Given a good set of
>instructions, CAW has, IMO, the best wargame AI I've ever seen.
I second this. Even the old C=64 version's AI beats out some
of the stuff that's out today.
Rainbow Warrior
Brett Holman (bho...@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Yes, go to:
: http://www.rapidramp.com/wize/
: There are about half a dozen there.
I tried this and get a blank screen. Has anyone else tried this
lately?
Bruno Schleich
Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
Old Salt wrote:
>
> On 26 Sep 1996 00:09:14 GMT, msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow
> Warrior) gave us his/her 2 cents:
>
> >Greetings:
> >
> > I just purchased the Complete CAW on CD. Does anyone know where
> >any new scenarios are? I found the ones on Grognard (Midway and The
> >Panama Canal Scenarios). Does Novastar have any CAW scenarios?
> >Does Run 5 publish many?
> > Thanks.
>
> Sorry Mike I don't have any answers. But there will be a new
> Newsgroup starting shortly called c.s.i.p.g.s.naval, you might want to
> try in there too.
--
Bruno Schleich Pt/Lx
mailto:bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
mailto:br...@sm.ic.ac.uk
Old Salt
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:52:07 -0700, Bruno Schleich
<bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> gave us his/her 2 cents:
>Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
>Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
Don't know anything about Flat Top, so I can't say. But
Carriers at War is the best WW-II Carrier game out there. The AI is
great, even back when it first came out on the old C=64.
Wayne Ko
Bruno Schleich <bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
>Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
>
>
I've got Carriers at War, Flat Top (Battleline's version; AH's is
basically the same game with a few rule changes) and CV (by Yaquinto the
designer is the same (from memory Craig Taylor?)). CAW covers all the
same major ingredients as Flat Top minus all the paperwork, and die
rolls. All in all, I'd say CAW is probably better than Flat Top since it
is easier to play and allows you to edit the AI, scenarios etc. provided
you have the Editor.
One minor beef I have about CAW is that since a lot of things are
automated, you have a little less control over what happens - i.e. you
cannot specify which carriers to attack etc as in the board versions.
This, however, does make the game more realistic, because these things
are out of the commander's control.
Also, I'll add my 2 cents worth on the AI, it probably is the best in the
business - any faults with it falls on the hands of the scenario
designer. I still remember playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese
and being ambushed with all planes on deck by the computer because their
task force was hidden in a storm - boy what a massacre, it sure was neat
to see my CV's exploding and burning though.
Wayne
Julian Barker
In article <32504F...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, Bruno Schleich
<bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes
>Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
>Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
>
>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 1996 00:09:14 GMT, msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow
>> Warrior) gave us his/her 2 cents:
>>
>> >Greetings:
>> >
>> > I just purchased the Complete CAW on CD. Does anyone know where
>> >any new scenarios are? I found the ones on Grognard (Midway and The
>> >Panama Canal Scenarios). Does Novastar have any CAW scenarios?
>> >Does Run 5 publish many?
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> Sorry Mike I don't have any answers. But there will be a new
>> Newsgroup starting shortly called c.s.i.p.g.s.naval, you might want to
>> try in there too.
>
Personally, I think CAW owes nothing to Flat Top.
I only wish CAW gave you as much control over aircraft that Flat Top
gave. I would like to decide how many aircraft should search, not have
the scenario designer decide fo me.
John Beaderstadt
Bruno Schleich wrote:
>
> Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
> Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
There is a *lot* of similarity. The major exception is that, especially
with the Construction Kit, there are virtually no limits as to theater
(or even time frame).
-
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
Scott D. Orr
In <324feb0b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>><bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> gave us his/her 2 cents:
>
>>Just curious, is Carriers at War anything like that boardgame called
>>Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
>
>Carriers at War is the best WW-II Carrier game out there. The AI is
>great, even back when it first came out on the old C=64.
>
scenarios in Flat Top (unless Flat Top has the naval Battle of
Guadalcanal -- that's an odd omission in CAW). CAW is more realistic,
particular in the search and combat routines, but the player (somewhat
realistically) has less control over the details of operations (you
arm and dispatch a whole squadron, rather than worry about small group
of planes).
Scott Orr
Scott Blaha
Julian Barker wrote:
>
> In article <32504F...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, Bruno Schleich
> <bsch...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes
> >Flat Top which was absolutely brilliant?
> >
>
>
> I only wish CAW gave you as much control over aircraft that Flat Top
> gave. I would like to decide how many aircraft should search, not have
> the scenario designer decide fo me.
>
> Julian Barker
me as much control as I would like. Flat Top really had no limitations-
you could 'build your own scenerios' with it if you so desired (I did).
Of course, you have to sacrifice something when going to the PC,
versitality is one thing. I don't miss having all those stacked planes
fall over in the middle of a game though (:
Scott B.
Scott D. Orr
In <32519F...@globalvision.net> Scott Blaha
<sbl...@globalvision.net> writes:
>
>>Ah, that brings back memories!... I also find that CAW does not allow
>me as much control as I would like. Flat Top really had no
>desired (I did). Of course, you have to sacrifice something when
>going to the PC, versitality is one thing. I don't miss having all
>those stacked planes fall over in the middle of a game though (:
You may have to sacrifice some things (social interaction over a game
board, though, is the only thing I can think of), but "versatility"
isn't one of them, especially with CAW.
CAW, as originally released in its second form (for the PC), was the
only SSG release not to include a scenario editor, but that was
corrected with the release of the Construction Kit, which is included
on the Complete CAW CD.
CAW gives you FAR MORE VERSATILITY than Flat Top -- not only can you
create you own maps (rather than being stuck with the northern part of
the Coral Sea), but you can create your own unit stats, use your own
graphics, and even program the AI.
Scott Orr
John Beaderstadt
Scott D. Orr wrote:
> CAW gives you FAR MORE VERSATILITY than Flat Top -- not only can you
> create you own maps (rather than being stuck with the northern part of
> the Coral Sea), but you can create your own unit stats, use your own
> graphics, and even program the AI.
More than that: One rather whimsical scenario inserts the USS Nimitz
and her aircraft between Nagumo and Pearl Harbor!!! If that isn't
versatile, I'd like to know what is.
--