11 Minutes Of Commanding Carrier Command Footage

I command these carriers to... CARRY!

As the slow dribble of behind-closed-doors E3 videos begin – rendering that whole “behind-closed-doors” bit a little farcical as it does every year – I suggest saving them all up and watching them all in three days, ideally in rooms about half a mile apart, with five minutes to get back and forth between them. Have those rooms be un-airconditioned, sealed off heat traps with the volume three times louder than the human ear can stand. Capture the experience. One very worthy addition to your schedule is Carrier Command‘s 11 minute presentation, giving you an in-depth idea of how it will play. It’s below.

The camera does eventually stop spinning around a boat.

You can of course get involved yourself via the pre-order beta, which is all done here.


  1. wodin says:

    I remember the first being a huge hit I vaguely remember playing it.

    Though I’m not that interested in this one.

  2. pakoito says:

    Dragon Command sounds better than Carrier Command, right?

  3. Kestrel says:

    The “narrator” really does his best to make this game sound as uninteresting as possible.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      And the super-bland visuals don’t help at all.

      It’s so much generic it’s almost original in how extremely generic it is.

  4. Lev Astov says:

    I have a serious problem with how unbalanced those aircraft look. The VTOL engines are all the way at the back!! ICK! And there’s this little tiny engine at the front, as if they realized this all too late to change it.

    This, of course, won’t stop me from playing the heck out of this game. It’s gonna be amazing.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I’d call games like this something like ‘military fantasy’. There’s not really much connection to reality, even if it’s set in the future. After all, carriers in 2012 are as outdated as battleships in 1942, let alone any time in the future…

      • Brun says:

        What? The aircraft carrier is what made the battleship obsolete. Nothing has come along to make aircraft carriers obsolete as of 2012.

        • wengart says:

          Arguably inexpensive ship killer missiles have.

          • topsiderover says:

            It’s always been an open secret in the Navy that modern submarines *will* get the first kill too.

    • Phasma Felis says:

      I dunno, I haven’t watched the video yet, but they look functional enough in the pics. The three engines are at the points of a triangle, so that’s a nice stable tripod. The front engine is smaller because it only needs to provide lift; the rear engines need to swivel, and provide extra thrust for both lift and forward motion at once.

      Mind you, it’s not entirely clear where the intakes for the front engine are, and I can’t tell from the pics if the rear engines actually do swivel in flight. Eh.

      • medwards says:

        Wait, what? What has replaced the carrier for force projection?

        • Mavvvy says:

          Well to be anal to the point of being smelly, nuclear torpedoes!!!!

          • Lev Astov says:

            Actually, it’s missiles in general that replaced the carrier, which replaced the battleship, but that’s another discussion.

          • Brun says:

            Not really sure how missiles make carriers obsolete. Just because you can kill carriers with missiles doesn’t mean that they’ve gone the way of the battleship. The greatest strength of an aircraft carrier is that it lets you launch aircraft from almost anywhere, meaning you can attack targets without a land base nearby. Missiles don’t take that away, especially since there are a variety of defenses against them.

            Battleships died out because their primary functions (ship to ship combat and shore bombardment) were both superseded by aircraft carriers. Carriers (and their air wings) could attack ships and shore targets more effectively than battleships could. Missles can also do these jobs, but not as well as aircraft carriers can.

      • Lev Astov says:

        Speaking as an engineer, it just reeks of terribly poor design principles. You’d want the largest engines and main motive force to be centered around the center of gravity, which these are nowhere near. It hurts me to see that on a level that you will never understand. Consider yourself fortunate.

        Incidentally, orcas from the original C&C games totally got it right.

        • Brun says:

          With those big engines and swivel equipment in the back, the CG is likely far aft, so they’re likely relatively close the CG. The real flaw is that far-aft CG, which will cause problems if you lose an engine.

          It’s a pretty terrible VTOL design but it’s not completely outside the realm of practicality. Just near the edge.

    • Darth_Pingu says:

      Just add a big gyro in the ship, and voilá.

  5. Gap Gen says:

    Looks good, although the campaign’s TWO FACELESS ACRONYMS, ONE IS IMPLICITLY BAD thing sounds horrible. Will see.

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      In the battle between M.U.R.D.E.R. and K.I.T.T.E.N., where will you stand?

      • Ultra Superior says:

        Kitten must be smitten.

      • Gap Gen says:

        You start off affilliated with KITTEN fighting against MURDER, but then at the SHOCK TWIST portion of the story you find out that KITTEN actually stands for Killing Innocent Turtles Totally Every Night and so you switch sides and then you fight the Evil CEO in his office except obviously you demand WHY WHY DID YOU KILL THE TURTLES for a bit so he escapes and then you fight towards his Private Spaceship and then find him on his Private Spaceship and then you say THIS IS FOR TURTLINA YOU SPACE BASTARD for a bit and so he almost kills you with a hidden Space Pistol but you throw him out of the airlock and he explodes and it’s all quips and cigars and high-fives and every complex socioeconomic problem is solved forever roll credits.

        Hire me, Bohemia.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      It sounds like a game made by completely unimaginative people.

      Who needs game designers, artists and writers – let’s just code this thing!

  6. yatagarasu says:

    I love it. It is Command and Conquer Renegade with Carriers. Nothing else is needed.

  7. Billzor says:

    First time I can remember thinking that a game’s campaign mode does not look that interesting.

    • Stromko says:

      The campaign does look terribly mediocre. BI’s strength is in-depth simulation in a huge battle space, altogether allowing a more emergent and open-ended experience. I don’t know why they insist on including these linear campaigns that hide away most of that complexity. The sandbox is where it’s at.

      I’m sure they know the FPS mode looks like crap or they would have shoe-horned the infantry into the carrier mode. It might have given it a better sense of scale, having troops alongside all the vehicles and turrets, but the on-foot action in this trailer doesn’t look nearly good enough.

      Going off this trailer, I think the best I can hope for is a more focused and polished game that doesn’t try to cover the entire combined-arms concept. Here’s hoping BI can deliver a smooth experience thanks to all the streamlining.

  8. yonsito says:

    Nice, but – err – first person shooter missions? Are they taking the mickey?

    • Gap Gen says:

      Worked fine in Battlezone. Depends how it’s done, of course.

    • LionsPhil says:

      That’s all I can conclude.

      Everything in the Strategy half seems remarkably close to the original, especially considering that the original is over twenty years old (feeling elderly yet?), but with some nice improvements to the controls (although perhaps not as many as the young whippersnappers would think—the ST version did picture-in-picture and waypoints too!)

      The story half is some kind of sick joke. The only reason I don’t hope the voice acting and writing aren’t placeholder is because I hope they’re not getting released at all. Focus on the good half!

  9. squirrel says:

    The trailer reminds me of another shooter: Battle Engine Aquila.

    But hey this one has the command system. I sure cannot afford to miss it.

    • egg651 says:

      Oh my God, Battle Engine Aquila. I remember loving that game, although I fear re-playing it might ruin my happy memories..

  10. tlarn says:

    While I like the strategy bits where you’re in the ship and conveying orders to vehicles and can even hop over to each vehicle, the on-foot segments had a very, very strong feeling of “been there, done that” for me.

    It looks fun, but I have my doubts on it being a memorable experience.

  11. Dominic White says:

    Having played the beta build of this… it’s Carrier Command. There’s more varied objectives, and some on-foot bits in story mode (which they say is only a small part of the game anyway), but it is, for the most part, a direct update of the original Carrier Command from the 80s.

    They also need to figure out some alternate victory conditions in sandbox mode (the mode in the beta, and a direct blow-for-blow remake of the original CC), because you basically win automatically if you can sneak up on the enemy carrier after it has deployed its units.

    • EvilMonk3y says:

      Are you enjoying it?

      • Dominic White says:

        Yeah, it’s a good solid bit of action/strategy fun. The included sandbox mode is a bit truncated, so I’m waiting on the full version before I dive back in.

    • udat says:

      I think I only ever managed to get close to the enemy carrier once in Carrier Command on the Atari ST. I was flying a Manta and as I approached the enemy carrier it set sail, powered right *through* an island, and had a top speed equal to that of the plane I was flying.

      I had saved it right at the moment it first started to leg it so I could show this craziness to all my friends.

      Still one of my favourite games on the Atari ST though. I sold my Spectrum and all my games for 25 quid so I could buy it and I didn’t regret that decision for several years :P

      • LionsPhil says:

        Yeah, the enemy carrier didn’t have to pathfind around islands because it didn’t clip with them at all. Bit of a CPU power cheat, although I’m not sure it’s thaaaaat hard a problem really; being point masses there are cheap ways to fudge it.

        I took it out with the deck laser and cruise missiles once. Feelsgoodman.

        • udat says:

          Hmm, I remember the deck laser, but not cruise missiles. Unless you mean the missiles the Manta carried…

          Did the carrier itself have missiles and I never knew?

          • Werthead says:

            Yeah. You had to launch a camera drone straight up and could then use it to launch cruise missiles from the carrier. You only had a limited amount of time before the drone fell out of the sky though.

  12. caljohnston says:

    Seems the game has a quest compass, quest radar, and on-screen quest waypoints all at the same time. It’s not hard to guess what the target audience for this game is.

  13. spezz says:

    Played the heck out of Uprising, i’m really looking forward to this.

  14. Joote says:

    It’s a crying shame that it had to be a console port. This one should have been optimized purely for the PC.

    • Dominic White says:

      … It’s a PC-centric game, and a near-direct update of the original Carrier Comand. It just supports gamepads as wel-oh… yeah.

      Dear god, PC gamers have turned into a miserable bunch.

      • Lev Astov says:

        Can you blame us?

        • Jay says:

          On the strength of Joote’s comment, yes. Yes I absolutely can.

          It’s pretty much a direct update of Carrier Command. It doesn’t get much more ‘proper computer game’ than that. Next thing you’ll be telling me the Spectrum port was selling out or something.

  15. Werthead says:

    It looks like a mix of Carrier Command ’88 and Hostile Waters, which is pretty much all I wanted from the game :-)

  16. TsunamiWombat says:

    *sigh* FPS missions.

  17. pistolhamster says:

    Watching this video just removed any inclination to buy this game that I harbored. IT looks bland, super dull, and the missions super corny. Sad me now.

  18. Joote says:

    You don’t get the ‘grab’ from this like you did with the original CC. This is more about graphics and the game play feels bland, and the AI is stupid, something you would get fed up with in a afternoon, I did.

  19. jon_hill987 says:

    I see parts of Battlestations Midway/Pacific a large chunk of Hostile waters with some Quake IV thrown in for good measure. Should be really good.