<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Carrier Command.</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-16109</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-16109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to Arma 3, BI has only been able to keep 2 developers working on CC:GM.  I only got the game a few months ago, and either I am incredibly tolerant of stupid behavior, or they have greatly improved the Walrus&#039;s AI since this review was written.  There are still a number of problems, like the game randomly crashes every 6 hours or so, and a few unit behaviors are still annoying, but for what it is, I still find the game to be incredibly fun.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to Arma 3, BI has only been able to keep 2 developers working on CC:GM.  I only got the game a few months ago, and either I am incredibly tolerant of stupid behavior, or they have greatly improved the Walrus&#8217;s AI since this review was written.  There are still a number of problems, like the game randomly crashes every 6 hours or so, and a few unit behaviors are still annoying, but for what it is, I still find the game to be incredibly fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: coupondeals.co.uk</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-1673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[coupondeals.co.uk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-1673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m really loving the theme/design of your weblog. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility issues? A number of my blog readers have complained about my blog not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any tips to help fix this issue?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m really loving the theme/design of your weblog. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility issues? A number of my blog readers have complained about my blog not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any tips to help fix this issue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-998</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jim Rossignol made this point in his RPS review; if you *are* prepared to wait around then I imagine Carrier Command is a great deal more palatable. Methodically taking apart an islands defences with Mantas was the way I was doing it, too, and it&#039;s why I don&#039;t think the concept of Carrier Command itself is flawed, it&#039;s this particular implementation of it. I was using Mantas for surgical strikes on the most important/toughest targets and then sending in Walruses to actually take and hold the ground the Mantas had softened up, since Mantas have no staying power. Then the Mantas would hit a little further inland and the Walruses would follow up again, and they&#039;d gradually chip their way closer and closer to the command centre. 

And I was enjoying all of that, Walrus pathfinding problems aside. I have no problem with a slow war, but I *hate* waiting around for things to happen in a game. I think I should always be doing something; there should be periods of downtime to break up the fighting and give me a breather, but those periods should only last so long as it takes me to put in a few production orders while I wait for my Mantas to rearm and my Walruses to repair. If the downtime lasts longer than it takes me to finish my housekeeping tasks and I end up twiddling my thumbs while I wait for something to happen, I consider that a failure in a game&#039;s design. It&#039;s a philosophical thing more than anything else and there&#039;s plenty of scope for disagreement, but Carrier Command&#039;s particular approach was not for me.

(Also I was paranoid about moving the stockpile island since the Carrier Ai is a little bit erratic about which islands it chooses to attack, often striking two or three islands past the &quot;front line&quot; deep into my territory. There was nowhere I could have put it that it wouldn&#039;t have been under threat, although it&#039;s possible I simply needed to gird myself, pick a new spot and switch its type to defence so I could at least have the time to get to it if it was attacked.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Rossignol made this point in his RPS review; if you *are* prepared to wait around then I imagine Carrier Command is a great deal more palatable. Methodically taking apart an islands defences with Mantas was the way I was doing it, too, and it&#8217;s why I don&#8217;t think the concept of Carrier Command itself is flawed, it&#8217;s this particular implementation of it. I was using Mantas for surgical strikes on the most important/toughest targets and then sending in Walruses to actually take and hold the ground the Mantas had softened up, since Mantas have no staying power. Then the Mantas would hit a little further inland and the Walruses would follow up again, and they&#8217;d gradually chip their way closer and closer to the command centre. </p>
<p>And I was enjoying all of that, Walrus pathfinding problems aside. I have no problem with a slow war, but I *hate* waiting around for things to happen in a game. I think I should always be doing something; there should be periods of downtime to break up the fighting and give me a breather, but those periods should only last so long as it takes me to put in a few production orders while I wait for my Mantas to rearm and my Walruses to repair. If the downtime lasts longer than it takes me to finish my housekeeping tasks and I end up twiddling my thumbs while I wait for something to happen, I consider that a failure in a game&#8217;s design. It&#8217;s a philosophical thing more than anything else and there&#8217;s plenty of scope for disagreement, but Carrier Command&#8217;s particular approach was not for me.</p>
<p>(Also I was paranoid about moving the stockpile island since the Carrier Ai is a little bit erratic about which islands it chooses to attack, often striking two or three islands past the &#8220;front line&#8221; deep into my territory. There was nowhere I could have put it that it wouldn&#8217;t have been under threat, although it&#8217;s possible I simply needed to gird myself, pick a new spot and switch its type to defence so I could at least have the time to get to it if it was attacked.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Move your stockpile island to cut down on resupply times.

Also, this game is not about charging in with all your units and trying to manage the fracas but planning your routes and picking off the defenses so you don&#039;t have to worry about babysitting your walruses so much. You don&#039;t necessarily have to deal with all the defenses on an island.  It&#039;s a slower game, but if this appeals to you, it is great.

For example, take out all the shield generators from a distance with manta sorties (I que them up with commands but drive myself), then soften up the command center defenses and make a beeline for it from the nearest beach.  Or multiple walrus raids from different positions around the island to hack firewalls.

Always scout first with mantas, quickly at altitude first, then carefully, taking a closer look and picking your approach.  Watch for AA, either pick off carefully or send in walruses once other defenses are weakened.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Move your stockpile island to cut down on resupply times.</p>
<p>Also, this game is not about charging in with all your units and trying to manage the fracas but planning your routes and picking off the defenses so you don&#8217;t have to worry about babysitting your walruses so much. You don&#8217;t necessarily have to deal with all the defenses on an island.  It&#8217;s a slower game, but if this appeals to you, it is great.</p>
<p>For example, take out all the shield generators from a distance with manta sorties (I que them up with commands but drive myself), then soften up the command center defenses and make a beeline for it from the nearest beach.  Or multiple walrus raids from different positions around the island to hack firewalls.</p>
<p>Always scout first with mantas, quickly at altitude first, then carefully, taking a closer look and picking your approach.  Watch for AA, either pick off carefully or send in walruses once other defenses are weakened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gap</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-991</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gap]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah, that&#039;s effectively what I meant. You&#039;re right - no point in spamming people or it&#039;ll just annoy them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, that&#8217;s effectively what I meant. You&#8217;re right &#8211; no point in spamming people or it&#8217;ll just annoy them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-989</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah I put a link there, and finally figured out how to make my RPS username link back here which is about the limit of what I&#039;m comfortable with. I always found posting on other blogs with the intent of driving traffic back to your own site to be a little bit seedy, but if people *want* to click that shit I suppose I can&#039;t stop them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I put a link there, and finally figured out how to make my RPS username link back here which is about the limit of what I&#8217;m comfortable with. I always found posting on other blogs with the intent of driving traffic back to your own site to be a little bit seedy, but if people *want* to click that shit I suppose I can&#8217;t stop them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gap</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-988</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gap]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:35:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A shame; you have some interesting stuff to say. Plus a simple &quot;From http://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/&quot; in the description of the video would be fine.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A shame; you have some interesting stuff to say. Plus a simple &#8220;From <a href="http://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/" rel="nofollow">http://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/</a>&#8221; in the description of the video would be fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-987</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I hate self-publicity. Hell, I even have trouble looking at my site analytics. Like Cavendish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Personality_and_legacy) I&#039;m best off pretending I&#039;m directing my posts into empty air, and then if people happen to be around at the same time they can read them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate self-publicity. Hell, I even have trouble looking at my site analytics. Like Cavendish (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Personality_and_legacy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Personality_and_legacy</a>) I&#8217;m best off pretending I&#8217;m directing my posts into empty air, and then if people happen to be around at the same time they can read them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gap</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-985</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gap]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Also, you might want to link to your blog on your RPS comments / the YouTube video comments. Nowt wrong with driving traffic to the site.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, you might want to link to your blog on your RPS comments / the YouTube video comments. Nowt wrong with driving traffic to the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-carrier-command/#comment-984</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=2392#comment-984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the best part is the Walrus which made it to the destination okay getting destroyed by a Manta while the anti-air Walrus is stuck going in circles. It couldn&#039;t sum the problem up better..]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the best part is the Walrus which made it to the destination okay getting destroyed by a Manta while the anti-air Walrus is stuck going in circles. It couldn&#8217;t sum the problem up better..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
