scareya

I really can't see any reason to refund any one. Bohemia provided a Beta version, asked for our feedback, treated us with one additional slightly different beta version and will probably provide us with the promised final versions when it's done. They did fulfill their part and to ask for a refund is kinda lame. Ok, the developers did not really provide any serious feedback to our reports (which I blame them for) and they ignored most suggestions to change the game drastically (which I completely understand). But that is not any valid reason to ask for refund. Get a grip!

I seriously doubt the Beta is reflecting the actual game too much. I am sure the developers didn't not just lay around the last few months enjoying the summer or so. They did improve the game as you can see watching the latest E3 video from end of June - the game on that video is as different from our Beta version as the Dark Knight Rises from the Batman TV series. Don't get me wrong: I feel ignored by the developers, too. I seriously wonder, why they installed a feedback tracker in the first place to basically disregard it thereafter. I was missing feedback and a certain amount of attention from Bohemia, I did spend hours to test and write my reports after all (even if I could not avoid to have fun doing it). But all of this does not impair my anticipation. I am looking eagerly forward to one of "my personal game of the year 2012" candidates. And I am still happy to get two versions of it for a very reasonable price.

I am quoting from the email which contained the key for the CCGM Beta: Your suggestions and bug reports might be more useful there, dirtydog. And it might also be worth to mention that basically all of your points were being reported at the feedback tracker before. But don't be irritated by this since no one from BI seems to listen to your suggestions, bug reports and first impression anyway... :j: Marek "Maruk" Spanel (CEO of BI) excused the obvious lack of interest with the team being busy finishing the XBox version (see this post). Nevertheless it feels a lot like BI pulled our leg with this "Beta Test". They wanted our money, but it surely seems they don't want our opinions. Even with a team busy as hell I think any developer would be well advised to give his best attention to a bunch of dedicated volunteers investing time and money in testing their products. But maybe I am just another babbling fool...

In the original Carrier Command from 1988 both carriers were autonomous units programmed to exploit the islands. One of them - unfortunately the faster and stronger one - got hacked by some terrorists, so you are given the command over the remaining carrier (hence "Carrier Command"). This could be done by deactivating the obviously vulnerable AI and you taking over instead by remote. You never were "on board". You might be even sitting at home with mouse and keyboard... If CCGM follows the story of the original game, that might explain why you could blast the control tower without damage to yourself. It would NOT explain why the remote control unit can be magically invulnerable, though. But maybe this is one of those questions you better don't ask. ;)

Your carrier needs fuel to perform repairs. You might need to call the supply barque after you have produced some. The repair priority levels of the carriers subsystems only regulate up to which amount of fuel on the carrier the selected subsystem can be repaired. IMHO the fuel consumption for repairs is too high - one of many things BI should tweak before release.

The last two activities of any BI-representatives in the CCGM Feedback Tracker were at 2012-05-25 and 2012-05-18. There is no status change of any feedback since. There is no reaction of BI whatsoever. That's why I am afraid the Beta is kinda over. At least noone seems to care about any of our feedbacks any more - I stopped writing them. I also doubt there will be an update.

Sorry for answering late. I am glad you signed up for the Beta meanwhile, RyderSpearmann. You won't regret it. It seem's like parts of my differences list were a little confusing though and I would like everyone to know that I am very, very satisfied with CCGM. I am quoting myself here: I haven't changed my opinion at all. Now your concerns: That hasn't changed. CCGM is still about control. There are just a few things different (and that was actually the original question in this thread). Most changes make CCGM better than the original, just a few don't. The sum is pure excitement. You won't miss that function too much. I promise. You can do that. You just have to zoom in and move the carrier step by step or manually. In the vicinity of an island you have full control over the carrier. Just when you sail from one island to the other you MUST use the "Set Sail" function (which is basically an automatic time warp) and you always will arrive at the "port" of the selected island. You can't "sneak up". This is actually one of the few things that CCGM does not better than the original. I guess this is the price we have to pay for multi-platform. But, well... Without multi-platform probably there would be no CCGM at all. This means that production is kinda serial at the moment. You produce one item after the other only. You can set up a production queue with certain limitations. What you can't do is to produce 2 items A, then 1 item B and then 1 item A again. If you add more items A they will always add to the ones already in the queue. But honestly: That is no big thing. It's just a difference to the original and so I mentioned it. Well, in the original game you had wire guided rockets. In CCGM you have two types: Rockets are flying always straight, Missiles can be locked on targets and are auto-guided after being launched. Both types are useful in different situations. It still is. The only drawback at the moment is the fact, that there is only one island loaded at a time. I don't like this, but the whole package is already my game of the year 2012. It is absolutely SPECIAL. No bad idea anyway... :cool:

You're sure you don't try this with the "Head Quarter"? As I mentioned earlier there are "Head Quarters" AND "Command Centers". You can't build a new Command Center on a former Head Quarter. That is NO valid contruction site. Only a former Command Center will do. Check that again, please, because in the whole Beta there were no complaints about such a problem before (as far as I know at least)...

When you approach a destroyed Command Center, you should be able to build a new one. You must be sure that you are standing in front of the destroyed "Command Center" though, there are "Head Quarters" on several islands just as well which don't work as building site for a Command Center. The Command Centers symbol is a downward arrow. I uploaded a picture to illustrate that. Watch for the "Tools" symbol, which appears as soon as you are close enough to a valid construction site with a Command Center Module on board of your Walrus. You then just press "F" and the construction begins.

Sounds to me like the "repair ammo" was depleted.

Then they would still have trouble with the rocks. The pathfinding is not the best whether there are trees or not. But most the time the vehicles get to their destination after a while. And I don't mind to help them now and then. After all there are just eight in total and usually just a fraction of those enroute at the same time.

That might have helped for the beta, but on the other hand you probably will have the same production and mining rates in the first half of the final game. So it's ok for me to test the "real" conditions. I wouldn't mind an additional "Production Factor" slider when creating a new game though... I don't have a general rule. It depends severely upon the type of the Command Center's defenses and on the difficulty level of course. Usually I play with Enemy Strength set two or three notches towards the difficult setting and only one starter island on my side. The shield generators are quite easily blasted away with rockets from a distance. I always move the carrier close to the shield generators and attack with the Mantas. I use the two basic Mantas (4 and 5) in turn to do that. Occasionally one of my Mantas gets shot down - in this case I usually restart the island to avoid time-consuming re-productions. Sassy island Mantas are being shot down that way by the waiting carrier automatically. After the shield is down I use the Mantas to clear up the way for my Hack Capsule equipped Walrus by shooting down some of the bothersome island's Mantas and Walrus' and their bases. My own Mantas will then hover along the way in "Attack" mode to handle surprises. This usually takes between 20 and 45 minutes depending on the defence level of the island. A higher defence level increases the chance to loose one Manta. The Scramblers are about the same. Only difference is that you absolutely have to move the carrier to a spot at the coastline where you can reach the scramblers with one of your Mantas. The procedure itself is the same as with the shield generators. Time to conquer should be the same - between 20 and 45 minutes. The Firewalls are a different matter since you must bring one of your Walrus' to each of the firewall stations. Usually I skip those islands until I can afford to produce a Hook, which makes it a lot easier. But I can't remember to have conquered one of those island in less than an hour - more if the island defenses are capable (STRONG/VERY STRONG). The only thing that might speed up the process is to destroy the Command Center in the first place and rebuilt it later. I usually don't do this, but I am sure time is more precious in the final game and I might use this strategy more often. Yes, that is so. I hope this is a beta thing only. In the final game I expect the enemy carrier to be something between giving no resistance at all and being invincible. *fingerscrossed*

Cool. Actually I never checked that because I wanted to avoid the math. :) Well, you forced me to! I found that 1 game minute is 6 seconds in real time. With a PROD. RATE of 3.0 the production of a fuel pack needs therefore 29 "clicks" (aka "game minutes") which is 174 seconds or a little less than 3 minutes of real time. That seems to be correct - I checked it with a stop watch. But this works only if your MAT. INCOME is high enough or you have enough material on stock for that production. The production of a Fuel Pack requires namely 300 MAT to be consumed in those 29 clicks (with the given PROD. RATE of 3.0) - this is a MAT "flow rate" of about 620 MATS per game-hour (60 game minutes). The math: 60/29*300=620. My actual MAT. INCOME was 800 in this situation, so I could produce the Fuel Pack without delay in the given 29 game minutes (I could even save some MATs for later while producing the Fuel Pack). If my MAT. INCOME would have been lower than 620 per game-hour the INDICATED production time would still have been 29 - even if the actual production time would have been higher. Missiles production needs 64 game minutes or 6.4 real minutes (still with a PROD. RATE of 3.0) and requires 3000 MATs. The MAT flow needed for a continuous production is now 60/64*3000=2815. If your actual MAT. INCOME is lower than 2815 and you don't have 3000 MATs on stock you can't continuously produce the missiles since you have to wait for material. The actual production time will be MUCH longer - in the given case with 800 MAT. INCOME (and no MATs on stock) it should be almost 4 times longer (exactly 2815/800=3.52) - about 25 real minutes. Basically your calculations were correct. But I think you miscalculated the "material flow rate" for the production and misjudged the MAT. INCOME rate. Those rates are not based on your "clicks" (game minutes) but on game hours (60 "clicks"). Correct me, if I'm wrong... :)

Dear site admins, it happens quite often to me that I get logged out while writing a comment (about 10 mins). I guess this has to do with the PHP session duration/timeout of this board. I don't use the function "Remember Me" because that is not a really safe option. I do approve of limiting the session time of course, but maybe you overdid it a little... Could you please check that? Thanks a lot. Regards.

Put two defense islands next to each other and give them a little time. Soon both islands will have a "VERY STRONG" defense with lots of heavy Mantas and Walrus and turrets. I never tried to put three defense islands next to each other. Maybe that improves the defense level even more...

You should include the beta condition of CCGM in your calculations. Right now you can have about six or seven mining islands and one or two production islands at best. The mining rate and production rate is therefore very limited. In the final game you will be able to conquer 30+ islands, which will boost your production and mining rates in the second half of the game beyond your wildest dreams. Right now - based on the beta impressions only - you just can't reliably estimate the production balance. But I am sure Bohemia will put great effort in balancing the final game. Be also aware that different islands have different mining and production capabilities. Lingard and Vattland are great mining islands, while Beacon and Terminus are probably better suited for Production. Also don't forget that your stockpile island always acts as production island - it might eventually be advisable to use Vattland or Terminus as mining islands AND keep the stockpile there to increase the production rate. Islands with smaller production and mining capabilities are most efficiently being used as defense islands.

All I can tell you I made out from observation only - I do not have any deeper knowledge about the mechanics of the game than everyone else. Each island can has a certain level of defense capabilities. You can check that level by clicking on the island in zoomed out map mode. A single non-defense island shows the defense level "WEAK". A defense island in contrast is producing more and a tougher kind of infrastructure than non-defense islands. A completely developed defense island has a defense level "STRONG". An island that was just transformed to an defense island does not yet offer a "STRONG" defense though - it has to build up that defense over a certain time. But a defense island always radiates some of it's defense capabilities to it's immediate neighbors. A defense island can therefore change an adjacent island's defense level by one step. A formerly "WEAK" island will be improved to "GOOD", a "GOOD" island will be improved to "STRONG" and a "STRONG" island to "VERY STRONG". The defense level itself dictates the defense equipment of an island. "VERY STRONG" islands have Mantas with Manta Armor MkII, Plasma Cannons or even guided Missiles. The same goes for Walrus and defense turrets. "WEAK" islands have vehicles and defense turrets with practically no armor, simple lasers and machine guns at maximum.

I do understand you, don't get me wrong. But I still think you act too drastically, especially with CCGM involved. It may be just another one of those multiplatform developments, but it's not one of those darn casual games. I had more fun with the Beta than with many other finished games these days already. Ok, it could have been something you really could get your teeth into, but my teeth are getting older (like the rest of me) and they don't bite all that good anymore. CCGM is one of the highlights in modern gaming. I guess, we won't get more than that. It's enough for me even if it might not be enough for others. But pidgeon racing? Wine tasting? Hmm. Mmmmh. Nah. Not really. :j:

BI made a game that maintains the atmosphere of the original Carrier Command very well. The playing style is about the same. The ingredients are the same. But there are many differences to the original just as well beside the obvious like modern graphics (no specific order and surely not complete): No landing of Mantas on islands Mantas can hover, fly sideways and backwards No fuel production for Manta and Walrus No Long Range Communications Pod No automatic production of several items at a time Attack/Defence/Assist modes for units No Manta on the Carrier's deck (Mantas are either docked or in the air only) No real free movement of the Carrier (just 'warping' from island to island) No independent timewarp function (only with carrier movement from island to island) Carrier's offensive weapon (Plasma Gun) front mounted only Defensive guns on the Carrier Hook for Mantas to carry a Walrus Rockets are no longer wire guided All weapons have limited ammo The island's terrain is strategically important Fixed position for Command Center on each island Repair, refuel and re-ammo buildings on islands (for Walrus use only) Repair Gun for Walrus Different armor types for Walrus and Mantas Ammo Boxes for additional ammo That is one of the differences. The islands are pre-made static as it seems. Additionally the game engine seems to support only one island to be loaded into memory at a time only. This is very limiting strategically since you can't use Mantas as remote reconnaissance units any more. As far as I know there is no multiplayer announced.

Dude, what's bitten you? Those bugs? The missing balance? The not-so-seemless world? Hey, it's Beta. There is a lot to do, and I am sure BI knows that. But give them a chance! CCGM in Beta condition is already better than many games I played before. This is absolutely no reason to act drastically. Well, if the developers would invent DRM, always-on-requirements, console-ports, streaming, quicktime events - those things could be a reason to stop gaming alltogether. Eh, hmm. Well, I see your drift. But stamp collecting? Think again!

I guess that's just as wrong from the average gamer then as from the software companies to not care about what their customers want. And I would like to place emphasis on the fact that PC gamers are customers, too. I do grant any developer the right to earn money though. Heck, without earning money they wouldn't be able to keep in business. But there must be a way to create games that give PC gamers the interface and the comfort they are used to. I think what all those guys are demanding is this: Don't cripple PC games because the consoles are relying on limiting game controllers, suffer from not enough memory and use old-fashioned hardware. There MUST be a way to develop cross-platform without castrating PC gaming. Carrier Command Gaea Mission is a great game which I really like. But I do find some things very limiting (compared to the original from 1985) and I am afraid those limits are brought by the limitations of the consoles. I don't like the limitations. But I do like CCGM even with them...

You find the version number on the title screen in the right lower corner. Still that is a strange thing! I am using 0.7.0912 which is - to my knowledge - the latest version of the Beta. I am absolutely sure that I have selected friendly Mantas and Walrus' on a conquered island just yesterday and I could steer them like one of mine (I couldn't dock them though - which I regretted somewhat :rolleyes:). I just tried it again 5 minutes ago and it wasn't possible any longer. That is puzzling. I will investigate... Update: I checked it again and I could no longer steer any of the friendly island units no matter on which island I tried. But after I conquered a new island again today the situation was different: It seems like after taking over an enemy island by hacking you can steer the now friendly units of this island even with the newest version 0.7.0912. But this works only until you move your carrier away to any other island or you reload your game - then the feature is gone. Actually this looks to me more like a bug now. But nevertheless I also want BI to bring back the feature as it was before. The function was very handy when defending an island against the enemy carrier. You could keep the own carrier out of range and you could attack the enemy with the island units. I also would like to have the option to replace a any of my vehicles by just DOCKing one of the island's fleet. That would be a quick and easy way (and IMHO a legitimate one) to restock your carrier after a long fight.

Hehe. Nevertheless I'm torn: I would really hate having the AI destroying one of my valuable Mantas. Making them indestructible while under AI command isn't maybe the best solution (I would prefer a reliable autopilot) but loosing Mantas to the AI is an absolute No-No! Maybe there should be a small time delay ( 5 seconds or so) for the indestructibility...

I am missing the long range comm pod, too. As BFCrusader mentioned before it was a great method to use a manta as a remote sensor to detect the enemy carrier's activities. But - to be honest - I am not missing that feature very much. Don't get me wrong: I would love to have this option in the game. Everything that adds to the versatility of the game wouldn't go amiss. The more challenge the better! But still: CCGM is quite good as it is already. With the present flaws removed I would be quite happy.

That's hard to say. But I am more than confident in BI's ability to create a challenging and exciting fight if you happen to run across the enemy carrier in the final game. I guess balancing the AI is something they do when the rest of the game is more or less finished.