Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

First impressions & thoughts

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
sourdust


Offline

Joined: 13 Jun 2018
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jun - 05:39 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Just discovered this game and snapped it up, loving it so far! It reminds me of Avalon Hill's "Flat Top" game, which I was obsessed with so many years ago when I first got into wargaming! 


A few initial thoughts/suggestions - apologies if some of these have been covered in the forums already in depth, hopefully it's useful to add my voice anyway...


1) When I first went through and completed all the tutorials, I still couldn't play a game - the "new game" buttons were locked. They remained locked even after I clicked on the "force unlock" button. Restarting the app fixed the problem, so put that in the minor bug category.

2) Graphics and gameplay are great! Really enjoying the challenge and the range of scenarios, and for a game at this level of abstraction the combat results feel roughly right. Air losses are a bit on the high side, maybe a few more "damaged" and a few less KIAs. Air to surface attacks feel right. Ship to ship is about right, but sometimes feels too bloody.

3) The game really needs to add the US Catalinas, or show them in game if they are simulated in there already somehow. The cats were the primary land-based search plane, and played an essential role in the Solomons battles in particular. (And if the US Cats are added, Mavises should probably be in there as well.)


[EDIT: Oh, I think I see what must be AI-controlled Catalina search arcs now. I'd prefer if the tenders and planes were actually in the game, but I suppose they can be abstracted without much loss of flexibility. Does the IJN get abstract seaplane tenders as well?]

4) US SBD scout bombers were armed, and on occasion succeeded in attacking targets of opportunity - most notably knocking out the Zuiho at Santa Cruz. US Dauntlesses on scout missions should have a chance of getting a random attack in.


5) I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the absence of submarines is very significant... they don't necessarily have to be all individually modelled and shown on map, but there should be some chance of sub attack, especially on cripples. 


6) The instances where US gets "surprised" during daylight surface battles feel wrong - the US should absolutely be getting surprised at night, but daytime is another matter. Also, torpedoes should not be limited only to surprise attacks - night battles especially should feature both sides launching torps, unless US Radar is enabling engagement at long range.


7) Transports are way too resilient, and too hard to catch with faster surface ships. Too often I've seen transports taking multiple bomb hits with nothing more serious than reduced AA and maybe loss of a cargo point or two. Transports should be very fragile - and when caught by surface forces they should basically be toast (esp. in daylight)


8) I don't mind that there is some additional paid content (scenarios and scenario variants), but I was surprised and really rather annoyed that you have to pay extra to enable weather. C'mon, really? Weather should be part of the core game.


9) Interface on the whole is reasonably good and intuitive. In general I don't like having to drag things around on an ipad, much prefer tap and tap again. Sometimes I find moving fleets difficult, I try to drag the fleet to a destination hex and I end up dragging the map around instead. I'm sure I'll get used to it.



Great game on the whole, keep up the good work and I hope I can look forward to purchasing more similar games in future from you! (And apologies if I've overlooked anything in the above, as I said this is first impressions after only a few hours of play.)


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Wed 13 Jun - 05:39 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,208
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun - 21:53 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Great feedback thanks !!


To answer your points:


1) should be fixed now
2) these are also shared by other players. I will replace a bit destroyed results by damaged results
3) AI controlled today. No sea plane tender. Sea plane bases are invisible and may not be attacked
4)  I know but not for now for the sake of simplicity
5) Will come in a 3.2 version
6) Surprise is just a battle system not reflecting totally the reality but giving an edge to Japanese torpedoes and surface radar
7) Indeed, they may have too much life points. 
8) Weather was added with what-if so that he could be added as an option at the start of a scenario. Weather is not foreseen tobe standard  but this could chamge in the future


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 721

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jun - 10:37 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

4. Armed scout, and scouting in general, has been discussed in great lengths here in this forum, and armed scout is no exception. This led to substantial improvements to the scouting system we have now.

5. We hear this first time here...

6. I have been very frustrated by Japanese "surprises". Historically, USN did not use her radar very well and by then, surface radar was not a magical, all-seeing eye. And the surprise thing has been toned down a lot and I am not surprised if this is still a pain in the neck

7. TRS does not get the name "toughest thing in CB4G" for no reason.  The thing is loaded TRS should be as fragile as a CVA, it carries a lot of organic inflammable stuffs, no less.  A US torpedo hit is even less probable then you getting run over by a car out there. And bomb does not simply reduce hit-point when it hits.  I think we may need some special rule for TRS.

8. My vote goes to making weather standard, especially in 2P.

I am not aware that BR has made any other games but I cannot say for him that this will not happen in the future.


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jun - 17:58 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Nice feed-back.

I fully agree with point 3; a lot of demand about it. I stil not understand why this very important part of the game is managed by the AI.

I agree also with points 5 and 7. TRS are really tough nutshells difficult to crack.

Also agree regarding weather. Getting it in the game should be the default.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 780

PostPosted: Wed 27 Jun - 08:10 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

I agree, nice feedback!


I agree weather should be standard but at the same time Bladerunner is constantly improving the game and I would like to see him get paid for his efforts so he will continue to improve the game.  


As for TRS, I think the tough hide is necessary because they are few in number.  US TRS struggle enough getting to Guadalcanal without getting sunk.  Making TRS weaker would make this task almost impossible.  However, I would be ok with weaker TRS only if TRS are available in greater numbers.  So instead of one ship carrying 6 cargo points, I would prefer to see 3 TRS carrying 2 cargo points. I think this would be more realistic as well.  


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat 30 Jun - 15:06 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Archerfish,

As discussed elsewhere, i am against increasing the number of TRS, this would not be historically accurate.
I am in favor of increasing step by step their vulnerability in order to find a point of balance; and maybe also by distinguishing between Japanese TRS and US TRS, making the first ones more vulnerable...


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 780

PostPosted: Sat 30 Jun - 18:11 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:
Archerfish,

As discussed elsewhere, i am against increasing the number of TRS, this would not be historically accurate.
I am in favor of increasing step by step their vulnerability in order to find a point of balance; and maybe also by distinguishing between Japanese TRS and US TRS, making the first ones more vulnerable...




Larsen. I’m not opposed to your idea.  


In the game, I feel in most scenarios the US supply lines are too vulnerable.  TRS are small in numbers and bombers are too deadly against them.  I thought buy doubling them and reducing cargo it would help by allowing some fuel to get in.  With the IJN fuel is never really an issue so they have an advantage.  That said, in Eastern Solomon, Santa Cruz and Guadalcanal, fuel was a struggle. I think the whole goal is how do you balance that struggle.  By doubling the TRS but dividing the cargo, the US can take some losses but still get some fuel to G and keep the player in the game.  I think we have all experienced as the US player, having all our TRS wipes out and planes just sitting on their field.  It’s not a whole lot of fun.


I do like your idea of making Japanese TRS a little weaker and making US TRS a little tougher.


One other thing I would like to mention is that when a TRS is damage it rarely looses cargo.  I think cargo losses need to increase a bit more when ships take damage. 


One other things we should think about is reducing the overall damage chart.  It’s pretty brutal.  Losses in the game are way higher than what actually happened in the real battle.  I recently played a 1P Guadalcanal game and sank a whopping 41 ships!  Those kind of losses on average just didn’t happen.  Of course in war ther is always the exception.  But by reducing overall damage for both planes and ships may help a little to.  I feel IJN torpedos are still a tad too powerful.  Average success rate for IJN torpedo sinking ships was about 12%. So, in a 12 on 12 battle.  Average loss should be 1-2 ships with a occasional 3 and a rare 4 but average seems to be around 3 and 4 is not so rare.  So maybe a little tweaking is needed.  


The biggest unbalancing factor to me in the game right now are the Betty’s.  They are simply way too deadly against ships at long range. But this is being discussed in another thread right now.  


Anyway, I’m open to ther ideas to resolve this. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat 30 Jun - 22:09 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Archerfish,

Regarding TRS, i fully agree with the idea of increasing the loss of cargo when ships are damaged.
Personally, i would be in favor of letting the number of TRS historical, increase the vulnerability of Japanese TRS that are much more resilient than they actually were and maybe increase resistance of US TRS. In parallel, i would increase vulnerability of cargo for both US and Japanese TRS.
In this way, you have more chance to get TRS survive but with less cargo.

I also fully agree about the losses that are too high compared to historical results. We should increase the damaged/destroyed ratio for the ships, like BR did for the planes. Clearly, nobody could afford to lose 40 ships in a single engagement, especially the Japanese side, this would have been the end of the Imperial Navy within a few weeks/months...
However, even if i am favorable to this idea, maybe rendering the game less lethal will make it less attractive for some players?


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 721

PostPosted: Wed 4 Jul - 05:21 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

About ship vulunerability, I agree and feel sorry for all the sailors happen to serve on DD, they have more or less signed a death sentence with them.

Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,208
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Thu 5 Jul - 07:39 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts Reply with quote

Weather will be included by default in the 3.1

Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 22:27 (2018)    Post subject: First impressions & thoughts

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group