What made the original Carrier Command so good.

[Jace11 10]

Obviously the thought of anyone tackling a sequel / update of the Carrier Command franchise concerns fans of the original game. The 1988 game was a classic, timeless in its innovation of combining RTS / sandbox and sim-style gameplay in one tiny package. And yet there has never been a game like it since...(not that I can think of anyway).

Carrier had:

Strategy: Capturing islands and defending the network. Strategic placement of defence islands was important and severing the supply network of the enemy seemed to delay his expansion.

Sandbox: A massive map littered with 64 islands. Not sure on the exact time it would take you to sail across the map, but having to resupply and refuel meant that it usually took people several days to get near the enemy's base island in the strategic game mode.

1v1: One AI opponent. This 1v1 aspect of the game was important. You looked at messages to see where the enemy was, trying to predict where he will strike next etc. The enemy carrier was a tough opponent to take down, and elusive. I'm pretty sure that during my first playthrough I didn't see him till the very end, near his base island. The naval setting added to the isolation of the player. You were alone in your ship with a vast expanse of ocean to explore and conquer!! - this added significantly to the "immersion" of the game.

Economy: You had limited numbers of everything. 1 carrier, 4 planes, 4 tanks. Limited number of weapon types, carrier had 2, planes had 3, tanks had 2. Nothing ridiculously overcomplicated. In subsequent RTS games you could produce endless streams of units. Not so in carrier. You could only manage a small number at a time, and using them all simultaneously was difficult because it required a heavy workload and coordination.

Hands on control: For all friendly vehicles, there was no AI other than a simple autopilot which took you to your destination.

I really hope Gaia does not change these significantly:

Strategy: Gaia could easily dumb down this aspect to cater to modern gamers who just want action.

Sandbox: The islands look pretty good in the screenshots but we haven't seen any info on the game worlds overall scale and the number of islands. There is no way a mission based approach would work without harming the game significantly.

1v1: Maintaining the feeling of the original game should be relatively straight forward but I'm concerned about these droid things etc detracting from the sense of isolation the player got in the original. I also noticed in the trailer that Mantas had human pilots... oh dear.. I hope this was just for the trailer...

Economy: Please only limited numbers of droids / tanks / planes etc!!

Hands on control: I can't imagine the AI of your units will be as passive as in the original, would expect it to be able to fight. Maybe it could be upgradable, would expect multiple waypoints obviously (something the original needed badly).

Research: People have mentioned this already, it may not be in Gaia, but I think there is a decent chance it will be included. If so, it can't be overpowered. Again, the improvements gained should be limited.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Jace11

[dontknowhow 33]

Obviously the thought of anyone tackling a sequel / update of the Carrier Command franchise concerns fans of the original game. The 1988 game was a classic, timeless in its innovation of combining RTS / sandbox and sim-style gameplay in one tiny package. And yet there has never been a game like it since...(not that I can think of anyway).

Battlezone 2 was similar in many ways. A mix of strategy and action, building and developing.

Another great game.

Battlestations Pacific could have been in the same league, but they blew it. I blame it on the console version, as usual.

[sav112g 10]

This could sound rather sad these days but the fact you could move your ship and fly round it at the same time as have a third sae/land vehicle move ashore I thought was amazing at the time. You could see everything move and you had done it.

I just loved the whole command aspect and that is why I hope the FPS is limited on the new one. The big thing for me is damage control in the new one, I want to fight to save my ship, while either attacking and retreating.

[Francois424 10]

+1

Keeping to the Original is a must... At least in a "Classic Scenario"

But for other "Scenarios" piloting different carrier types, or having options to check if you want the new stuff or not (ie: Unatended AI's, Droids, etc).

[NeMeSiS 11]

Strategy: Gaia could easily dumb down this aspect to cater to modern gamers who just want action.

Sandbox: The islands look pretty good in the screenshots but we haven't seen any info on the game worlds overall scale and the number of islands. There is no way a mission based approach would work without harming the game significantly.

1v1: Maintaining the feeling of the original game should be relatively straight forward but I'm concerned about these droid things etc detracting from the sense of isolation the player got in the original. I also noticed in the trailer that Mantas had human pilots... oh dear.. I hope this was just for the trailer...

Economy: Please only limited numbers of droids / tanks / planes etc!!

Sounds like you never played a BI game before. This game should be in good hands. ;)

[scrapser 11]

As stated, the Battlezone franchise was the only other game that came close to Carrier Command. Perhaps BIS could look into picking that one up and developing Battlezone 3.

[dontknowhow 33]

As stated, the Battlezone franchise was the only other game that came close to Carrier Command. Perhaps BIS could look into picking that one up and developing Battlezone 3.

I didn't know that Pandemic Studios were dead. I wonder who owns the name Battlezone now.

Man, wouldn't that be awesome: Carrier Command + Battlezone. Shame that the same won't happen for Battlestations

Anyway, just one nice game would be ok. Looks like it's difficult enough. I'd love to have a game that offers some depth, and not just eye candy.

[Dwarden 1124]

Activision owns the Battlezone brand, so forget it

[EricM 0]

Battlezone was pure gold... Great Story, awsome gameplay. BZ2 was prettier, but it didn't have the cold-war theme of the first one. Very enjoyable still.

The mix of action and RTS was almost perfect : the way you could easily order units, build structures, group units together, jump in and out of vehicles, snipe your opponent, scavenge wrecks etc... is still unmatched.

As for the brand itself, I don't think Activision is going to do anything with it anytime soon. But if BIS makes a similar gameplay, I don't care how it's called (Battle Command : Carrier Station 2112), I'd be a happy camper.

Edit : I remember Battlezone was the game I played the most around 2000 while waiting for an upcoming game called Flashpoint 1985 : Status Quo, and then our famous OFP : CWC.

[dontknowhow 33]

Battlezone was pure gold... Great Story, awsome gameplay. BZ2 was prettier, but it didn't have the cold-war theme of the first one. Very enjoyable still.

The mix of action and RTS was almost perfect : the way you could easily order units, build structures, group units together, jump in and out of vehicles, snipe your opponent, scavenge wrecks etc... is still unmatched.

When you talk about battlezone you remind me of the original one, from the 80's :)

I wouldn't say so. It's been a long time, but for what I remember battlezone 2 was conceptually very similar to carrier command. The two games are in many ways not comparable, since there are more than 10 years between them, but I clearly remember the mix of strategy and action I saw in both.

As for the brand itself, I don't think Activision is going to do anything with it anytime soon. But if BIS makes a similar gameplay, I don't care how it's called (Battle Command : Carrier Station 2112), I'd be a happy camper.

Absolutely. The name is only a nice to have. The game is the priority.

It doesn't even have to be a battlezone like game, to be honest. For me these are only examples of complex games mixed to action, which I like. I wouldn't mind a game taking something from X3, for example. That was another interesting game in many ways.

Activision is not going to do anything with it because most gamers are too dumb for that kind of game. Any game where you have to use more than 2 buttons is usually too complex.

Very few companies are interested in that kind of game, unfortunately. BIS being one of those.

As a sidenote, while googling for battlezone 3:

http://www.battlezone3.com/