Thygrrr

Nah, there's plenty more. The campaign is quite long for an AAA game! But then, it's not really an AAA campaign... but it actually has a good story, or rather, a convincing and competent villain.

I actually don't have missiles in my campaign, and in my strategy game (low resources), I use lasers and a quad gun because I have no resources for missiles either.

They added a whole freaking FPS with turret sequences and vehicle chases, for christ's sake! Yes, the game is faithful, but I have to admit some of the resources were not well spent.

Yes! At least double or triple the zoom levels, and let us zoom at least so far out that we can see the entire telemetry range on one screen in tactical mode before it switches to strategic mode. Really, you rarely need to see your island in strategic mode. You always want to see the next 3 or 4 islands as well. There is also a really disturbing jump when you switch to strategic mode (it clamps against the island's boundaries, which it doesn't really need to), meaning you frequently lose track of where you were initially wanting to zoom in.

HEAT Shell I suggest nerfing its damage vs. structures... so it's maybe at 25% to 30% of the carrier plasma gun damage per shell, or maybe 50% to 70% of a Manta rocket. It currently it feels almost twice as strong as the carrier deck gun! With its long range, I can easily snipe key structures from afar (2 shells = 1 manta hangar or 1 radar installation, 3 shells is a walrus garage) Also, since it is a 1 shot 1 kill weapon vs. most Walruses, limit its ammo to 25 instead of 75. That would also make it less useful against Mantas (you can't afford to waste shots and should take cover instead). It should only deal its "vs. structures" damage to carriers, as well. Lastly, I'd make it a 2-shot kill versus Armor Mk.2 Walruses, like 50% to 60% damage per projectile. That way you can more confidently hand the weapon to more enemy walruses, and (yay!) turrets. The HEAT also has firing issues with the AI, when approaching enemy units, the AI gunner often overshoots the target at point blank range (i.e. enemy walrus is 2 meters in front of the walrus!) Seems to happen when the enemy is slightly below and the friendly walrus is driving. There is a HUD aiming issue where the reticle turns red (I guess to show you a decent firing solution), but you actually have to aim further till it's only faint pink. This is compounded by the fact that the actual barrel of the walrus conceals the location you want to shoot at, so you have to repeatedly re-aim to zero in on a target. Maybe detach the reticle and have the camera look straight ahead. LASER suggestions Reduce laser ammo by around 50%. Seriously, it's too versatile and precise. Or make it overheat twice as fast (or a suitable combination of the two). Make enemy walruses with Lasers spawn more rarely. (they don't have the ammo issue because of their shorter life time). Instead, spawn more gatling walruses. They are fun. GRENADES Suggestions There is a HUD aiming issue where the reticle turns red (I guess to show you a decent firing solution), but you actually have to aim further till it's only faint pink. The AI sometimes goes into crazy auto fire mode with these when the walrus approaches a target from the water from long range. I think maybe the solver returns a firing solution so it fires, but there should not be a solution because the target is way out of range. Both enemy and friendly walruses lob grenades at mantas, obviously they rarely hit. It'd be great if no line of sight was required for the AI (both friendly and enemy) to fire grenades at contacts (indirect fire solution). ROCKETS suggestions Manta rockets are cool but the mouse sluggishness makes aiming a little challenging (meaning you can get more done with a sustained fire weapon like the Gatling or Laser). Maybe consider nerfing their damage by 50% and doubling their ammo count to 20 and cutting their firing cooldown in half. BOMB suggestions Just too expensive for what it does. The other weapons are too efficient at killing from a distance, basically nothing I would WANT to drop a bomb on is undefended enough to let the bomber even get through. Once all the defenses are taken out, usually it's easier to move in with Walruses or Mantas with Gatlings. GATLING suggestions (Manta) It could do a little more damage versus mantas. Maybe nerf its ammo count. It's just totally inferior to the laser. GATLING suggestions (Walrus) Somehow it's a well-rounded upgrade from the machine gun. Keep the ammo count or even extend to 1000. QUAD GUNS (carrier, turret, and walrus) Too strong against non-air targets. They frequently target ground targets (both walrus and carrier guns). Enemy carrier quad guns also fire at the player carrier and walruses, it seems. DECK GUNS (plasma and shell) Is there a reason the firing arc is so limited? Make it turn at least 270°, otherwise players have to turn the carrier an unreasonable amount of times. The carrier should be allowed to be given a direct "attack target" order; and for the shell deck gun, there should be an indirect firing solution (so I could shell inland targets by clicking at them even without line of sight or a spotter). Because there are so few line of sight situations (and visibility is often terribly low), the only targets one can ever attack with the deck plasma gun are maybe 1 building on every second island. The projectiles are so slow, it doesn't work against moving targets at all (even though it fires at enemy mantas). Maybe convert it into a laser gun? The shell gun is slightly better, but you have to constantly spot with a manta and you have to re-target every time you switch cockpits. Indirect fire attack orders would solve this awesomely. The trajectory of the shells could be flatter (i.e. their velocity higher) The deck gun could also profit from a much better zoom (the old carrier command had a great deck gun zoom, though its projectiles were also too slow and short ranged to be of any use). Deck guns should have much less ammo (and it should maybe be produced instead of auto-restocked, and/or drain fuel). I think something like 50 to 100 shots instead of the 500 it has now. What good are 500 shots that you can never use, anyway? ---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ---------- I realize I missed the P&C beta. :P Hope you guys find some time for balancing out the weapons more. :-)

This just totally needs multi player. Imagine what to real human captains would do. They'd fight to the last machinegun round.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I didn't know that.

I know there are updates, but they usually are far in between. Though I guess times are changing and it doesn't cost anything to ask. But it's rare enough to get proper patches for PC games if they are released in a less-than-optimal state, or address some niche audience. (however, BI has kind of a special status here because their products have a very long shelf life)

Ohhh... a little bitter, aren't we?

Yeah, it's capturing all my islands in the campaign. I can chase after it, but I can't possibly take all of them back before he takes at least 2 other ones. Cat and mouse, anyone? Seems to be a design flaw; this was a problem with the original Carrier Command, as well. Both agents (player and enemy) very rarely have the same interest at the same location. If one is even set to actually run away by default, it's pretty hard to turn this around. It'd be cool if the enemy carrier paid ME a visit while I had all my walruses out in the field hacking firewalls. Now THAT would really make me jump.

*groan* Make mods, not puns.

Agreed, your points are pretty valid. (I like the Walrus Quad Gun though, but Walrus HEAT is totally Overpowered; or rather the other weapons aren't nearly as useful). It took me a long time to learn to coordinate my attacks, simply because the units make so many mistakes. I also think it's a great game, but it needs a whole iteration of polish; some features don't feel exactly "done", like ammo / supply / fuel / carrier weapons, or unit AI. If I tell my unit to dock after it's heavily damaged, I DON'T want it to loiter in the area for another 20 seconds (mantas do this a lot). This has cost me so many units and, because of lacking manual time warp, so much time. And I also disapprove of the "instanced islands", while I can see the reasons for this there should be a way to have an unit at another island, and the transition between island and open sea is pretty harsh, making it difficult to keep the screen focused on the carrier or units, etc. Also, you can actually lose a unit in the ocean when you deploy it while fighting the enemy carrier on the high seas. That unit turns out to be nigh impossible to retrieve (cancel time warp, but you can only go in straight lines towards islands, what if you chased the carrier off course?).

Honest question: If you want/expect updates (other than non-free DLC/Expansions/Sequels), why did you get a console? Release date: The game is probably available in electronic format in all territories, and in physical format only in some territories.

I think the carrier doesn't neutralize the closest one, it only neutralizes ONE of them. And if there is another one nearby, your telemetry range is crippled. Move around the island till the situation improves.

Four letters: H.E.A.T ... and good visiblity. You can easily take out Hangars, Garages and Radar installations, as well as turrets and enemy ground units, from a safe distance with the high explosive anti tank weapon. You should bring one or two walruses with Quad Guns because while with some practice, you can reliably down Mantas with the H.E.A.T as well, you will want to conserve your ammo and you may have more important targets at hand (or simply be swarmed by Mantas).

By the way, the H.E.A.T is ridiculously IMBA compared to the other weapons (only the Laser comes close in utility). It's too strong vs. buildings IMHO, considering how strong it is vs. vehicles, and how good its effective range is (keep that, though).

You can't hack a destroyed center. Use a RESC, DFNS or FACT capsule instead to build a new one on top of the ruins (takes a while).

I had multiple crashes, and two freezes. This is the Steam version. So yes, there is a bit of work to be done. Save early, save often, and you rarely lose more than 10 minutes of game play, though. My main beef is with the totally bonkers unit/enemy AI, and pathfinding. I'm sure a workable solution will be found in time. Too bad this is going to cost the game a few points in the eyes of most reviewers (and somewhat rightfully so). Unfairly so, reviewers are probably going to disrespect the FPS parts, which - while pretty basic (and some scripted events seem not very polished) - actually serve a good purpose in the quite admittedly very gripping single player campaign.

Hey, we can agree that parts of the game aren't as polished as they could be (and nowadays, AAA games rarely are unlesss you are a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard or EA), but looking back at the development history of this, I think the team did an outstanding job to create a presentable and well-counded product that (and this is the cool part!) is extremely faithful to the original yet expands on it in many cool ways (the first "Scramblers" mission I encountered in the Strategy Game made me jump with joy). While I found the FPS sections a little debatable (I'd be happy with a twice as polished Strategy Game & AI instead), these episodes do add to the game by advancing the storyline from a first person view, and they are actually pretty cool as a plot device to get some pace going. Personally, I only wish games would stop trying to compete on a market that's squarely divided between MoH, CoD, and BF; and every war zone FPS will be measured against them, no matter how unfair the comparison. So unless you do something truly creative (like Spec Ops: The Line), all you do is risk poor reviews because your FPS doesn't have half the Budget of the latest CoD installment. All in all, this has turned out a pretty decent game that is actually more fun to play than the original - and I say that even with my nostalgia glasses still firmly on my nose. With the modding capabilities we can already see and what the developers have announced, this game will survive long with a loving community. Now, the addition a simple carrier-vs-carrier, maybe multi-island, multi-player mode would be perfect.

Oh, that's great to know. I know there isn't much we modders can really do right now except experiment, so I hope these questions don't cause additional stress for you developers.

:o So much love! <3

No, this is possible, but it requires a rewrite how the island list is managed. It currently appears to be largely hardcoded.

The first one with the swamps in the campaign. I definitely did it there.

I think multiplayer is important. In particular, 1v1 multiplayer, 1v1v1v... FFA multiplayer, or coop multiplayer. Adding multiplayer will require extensive changes to the game code that will cause the whole thing to become much cleaner and stable if done carefully enough. However, it's also so much work (I'm afraid) that the chances of multiplayer actually making it into the game are slim, especially if Carrier Command: Gaea Mission doesn't get the love it deserves from the press. @deanolium: I think the APA carrier could be rewired to work as a player carrier. Or the UEC carrier could be rewired so multiple clones of it exist in the game world. This is, however, the "so much work" part. :)

IMHO the best start are the remains of the old beta campaign, or the preview campaign. Why? Because that builds a fixed simple network of islands. Meaning one can start with a small 3 island test campaign, and slowly refactor this until it's really scalable. I have yet to find out what in the game runs the actual scripts, i.e. how they are "linked" into the game at run time. This is the key magic thing the engine does. And maybe there's even an event hook in proto.h or somewhere else for UI events, or maybe it'll be added later.