On 5 Nov 2007 19:15:18 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
> On 04-Nov-07 12:01:28, Seppo said
> >On 3 Nov 2007 18:39:6 +0000, "Angus Manwaring" wrote:
> >> For maximum damage it would seem that if you decide to ceash your
Manta
> >> into a target you should drop the Quaker just before impact.
>
> >Nice testing there, dude :)
>
> Thanks, I tried to use good, scientific methods. :)
And it worked very well :)
> >A note about Carrier laser and ground targets - it is very tricky
> >to hit small targets like island defence posts with it. I tried to
> >clean one island only with lasers and it too ages.
>
> Usually (always?) you simply cannot reach the targets furthest in land,
as
> the laser doesn't have the range.
Never thought about them been limited in range - that would
explain the thing I describe below.
> >Also, don't know it this is a bug, when you have used zoom
> >with the laser its looks like some of the shots are not hitting
> >the target at all (even if they seem to travel straight through
> >the target). For example when trying to destroy a command
> >centre I need more than 50 shots before the bunker is
> >destroyed.
>
> It maybe that control centres get tougher the longer they are
established,
> and depending on theri network links. In fact I think that is the case.
Could be, since some bunkers need only one Quaker bomb, while
others might need three. Or maybe the defence island bunkers are
sturdier than others? Then again, I might be out of range while
shooting them.
> >I still have some way to go to enemy base island, looking forward
> >to conguering it :)
>
> Well, I'm on a cruise at the moment, mopping up several islands around
the
> map that I bypassed when I blitzkrieged through to Nemesis. He has now
> retaken Nemesis and put in a couple of attacks on nearby islands, so
> hopefully he will be capable (and willing) to go toe to toe when I get
> back up there.
>
> >> The game mechanics should be more robust. I took out the island
because I
> >> needed to force Omega to appear, as it seemed to be in an infinite
loop
> >> trying to attack Nemesis but not being strong enough to continue for
more
> >> than a few seconds, I left the computer running and it continued
doing
> >> this for hours - another feature? :)
>
> >I still think you should have used some more traditional way of
> >fla****ng out the Omega :)
>
> I hear a lot of talk.... :) If you can sugeest an alternative method,
I
> would be delighted to hear it.
Well, anything else than shooting your own forces would do nicely ;)
You could try the method I used - try to figure out his most propable
next target and ambush him there.
> >> I think that's a valid point. It maybe that Gravity even offers a
better
> >> challenge than Carrier Command and a more complete game, but very few
> >> people will find that out because the GUI in Carrier Command is so
damned
> >> good - in short, its more comfortable.
>
> >I think another difference between Gravity and Carrier Command
> >is the clarity of gameplay - in Carrier, you have a clear goals and
> >set of tools which are easy to use. In Gravity, player is expected to
> >set his own goals and most of the stuff you use and face in the game
> >is poorly explained.
>
> Well, the overall goal is to destroy the Outie fleet or turn the Outie
> Homeworld local black hole into a star, which is fairly clear - but I
> agree, and I see it as a connected point: Carrier Command is beautifully
> intuitive, and Gravity isn't. This, I think is mainly down to the design
> of the GUI,and the quality of the manual, but also I think Ross Goodley
> was trying to produce do something different from Realtime. He wanted to
> create something unique and original, and I think he succeeded. Where
> Carrier Command scores over Gravity though is as we've said, is in its
> sheer ease of use.
I would also add the quality issues - the number of crashes I
experienced
when playing the Gravity was depressing.
> >> Stay with the Manta's weapons. ;)
>
> >Hmmm...I hate these quessing games :)
>
> Those air-to-air missiles the Manta has? They may be more flexible than
> their description suggests.
So they can be used against ground targets? Never thought that, as
I suspected their warheads were too small against the enemy
installations.
> >> When you look at the whole package, I personally don't think it was
ever
> >> surpassed.
>
> >It is great, but I thing for example F-16 Combat Pilot offers a
> >better blend of action, simulation and strategy. Having said that,
> >it would be cool to play a more thorough simulation of aircraft
> >carrier - sadly, with the current situation it will never happen on
> >Amiga.
>
> Well, I don't want to get into another F-16 Combat Pilot discussion with
> you, ;) but I don't think DI's GUI is a threat to the Realtime one -
> but anyway, I would class F-16 (like Flight of the Intruder, although
that
> was more tactical - Birds of Prey maybe?) as essentially a flight-sim
> (with a strategic dimension). ....and dubious trees. :)
I think F-16 campaign mode and Carrier Command have lot in
common - in both games it is easy to create strategies and the
GUI does not stand in way of executing them. When playing Carrier
I sometimes hope the Walruses and Mantas could be just assigned
to perform a mission - and you could either do them yourself or
leave them to AI. Like in F-16, you could assign targets to AI pilots
and participate the attack in one machine if you want. Just imagine
a squadron of AI-controlled Mantas ripping the island defences apart
and providing air cover while you sneak in with a Walrus :)
> I think Psygnosis' Armour-Geddon was designed to be an updated Carrier
> Command, but I have never managed to get enthusiastic enough to keep
> playing it for any length of time.
Never played that one - only read the reviews. I would be interested to
hear
what you think was wrong with that game.
Bye,
Seppo
|
