PDA

View Full Version : What are the dimensions of the area of combat?



chip5541
21st Aug 2006, 05:42
Ceiling height for planes?
Depth of ocean?

Also when in Sub view will we see the ocean floor and any ships sunk will we see the debris on the floor?

princecaspian4
14th Nov 2006, 00:51
with how much attention they are paying to realism in this game i think that for subs they will probably be limited to what their max depth is before they are crushed and planes would probably have their own operational ceiling, but that is just a guess i have no idea, but it would make it more realistic, being able to have your subs go deep to avoid depth charges, and have your planes go up over their fighters and AA

P.S. i read something about the operational area being something like 50x50 miles but the article i got it from was old and it could change (really it could change from mission to mission

princecaspian4
25th Nov 2006, 19:39
15. How large will the battleground be once the battle begins? What’s the current limitation?
The complete size of a map is 20 by 20 km, included with an additional 2 km "border zone" where the player will be warned to turn back. So the whole battleground is 18 by 18km.


that is how big the combat area is

Beastttt
25th Nov 2006, 23:49
18km is roughly 18,000 yrds so if that is the starting point then you start under the range for your armor on the BB's to be effective vs other BB's
now cruisers 18kyds is just right vs other cruisers

also if that is the case if they do long lances per actual specs they will only use up about 1/3 of their range on their slow setting of 36kts
20kyds is just about their range at high speed(49 kts)

the big question is how big a battle space is that can be run on a computer with the spec needed
that is 20kyds by 20kyds by 200yds deep and 10,000 high

I've player naval minitures and this would be the area for a small game using light cruisers and destoyers

lets hope they make the battle space a bit larger or if your ship gets a bit mauled you can disengage by only going no more than 10kyds to get to the edge og the battle spaceji09


with how much attention they are paying to realism in this game i think that for subs they will probably be limited to what their max depth is before they are crushed and planes would probably have their own operational ceiling, but that is just a guess i have no idea, but it would make it more realistic, being able to have your subs go deep to avoid depth charges, and have your planes go up over their fighters and AA

P.S. i read something about the operational area being something like 50x50 miles but the article i got it from was old and it could change (really it could change from mission to mission

princecaspian4
26th Nov 2006, 04:26
so i was wrong about the amount of realism, but, it's a game, i don’t think they will have weapons that can reach all the way across the map, so the size won’t be a problem, also computers need to run this, so it can’t be too big.

Beastttt
26th Nov 2006, 08:49
Fighting Steel had ships easily starting outside of visual sighting and gunnery ranges(over 50,000 yrds and that needed a 300mhz 128 meg ram 8megs of video ram machine and the computer handled all the the gunnery and being the foe in a vs computer game

this game is looking more like an arcade game than a realistic game if what I'm seeing on these boards

with all the addons that NWS added the game needs a 700 meg machine now but it also handles 50 ships total over the 20 when the game came out

and if the battle space is only 20kyds on a side Islands are going to need to be really small or players are going to run aground all over the place

figure an air field that has B-25's on it will need a field at least 2,000 yds long for take off
and if someone trys to bring up the Doolittle raid off the Hornet
those B-25's where striped of armor, some weapons and ammo and carried only 4 250lb bombs(1000 lbs) instead of 16 250lb it could carry(4000lbs)
don't even think of what a B-17 needs for take off

princecaspian4
26th Nov 2006, 17:38
so it's not realistic, it's a game, cut it some slack

Dutch Jester
26th Nov 2006, 18:29
ya its still flippin AMAZING!!!!

timetraveller
26th Nov 2006, 19:44
I think visible distance is a big part of the problem. Few naval games render the world out past 10KM from the camera because of CPU and video card constraints. Double that to 20km and you have 4 times the area to render that you do at 10km.

Pacific Storm, even with 100km X 100km maps has scaled the gun ranges down to about 1:3, i.e., BBs main guns range out to about 10km. Many other gun's ranges are made roughly to the same proportion. So it becomes a playability thing.

I do hope BSM will have some moddability so we can play with values like these.

TT

Beastttt
26th Nov 2006, 21:07
but it is advertising itself as such


so it's not realistic, it's a game, cut it some slack

Beastttt
26th Nov 2006, 21:09
they should also scale the speed also or your BB will be be speeding along like a dragster


I think visible distance is a big part of the problem. Few naval games render the world out past 10KM from the camera because of CPU and video card constraints. Double that to 20km and you have 4 times the area to render that you do at 10km.

Pacific Storm, even with 100km X 100km maps has scaled the gun ranges down to about 1:3, i.e., BBs main guns range out to about 10km. Many other gun's ranges are made roughly to the same proportion. So it becomes a playability thing.

I do hope BSM will have some moddability so we can play with values like these.

TT

princecaspian4
26th Nov 2006, 23:29
so they scale everything down, problem solved

Lthawk77
29th Nov 2006, 02:32
If you want a realalistic reply. Battleships could shoot at eachother from anywhere around 10 miles to 15 miles..... and farther

Beastttt
29th Nov 2006, 05:01
I would cut them some slack if they practiced what they preach

they make the claim on the game info page of having"Authenticity & Realism"
on the game info page

http://www.battlestations.net/game-info/

3rd paragraph from the bottom

while I will most likely get this game
it is not authentic nor realistic

my hope is that the KGV will be much weaker than the Yamato as it should be
while the KGV will have radar and better fire control and much better damage control
the japanese torps should do at least x1.5 to x2 the damage of an allied torp(the japanese 24" torp is a monster compared to the american or brit 21" torp)
and at this early part of the war the americans torps should dud or run too deep 80% of the time

damage control the americans should rule in this as they did in WW2 and the japanese should be the worse

sofar in reading the specs on the ships it seems that all destroyers get 6 torps when the fletcher class should have 10 and the Fubuki should have 9 torps in 3 banks 3x3 and should have reloads(though in real life only 1 battle the japanese tried to reload in combat it took them 30 mins to load 1 torp
out of combat they could reload the whole bank in 15 min

what I want is to see the differences between them not have them be clones of each other



so it's not realistic, it's a game, cut it some slack

princecaspian4
29th Nov 2006, 19:32
your ideas may work for single player, but for multiplayer they should have allied and Japanese equal in everything, or else one side will have a advantage over the other so they would either have to make the ships in single player equal, or give one side in multiplayer an unfair advantage, or design 2 separate sets ships for multiplayer and single player, I would say that designing 2 sets of ships would be a waste of time, and having the sides on multiplayer unequal would probably annoy a lot more people then getting some technical aspect, that most people don't know about and don't care about, wrong. also maybe they aren’t going for "Authenticity & Realism" in every single aspect of the game, realism has to take some hits to make the game fun (because I don't think real war is fun), and to make it easy to play. also maybe there are other aspects of the game we just haven't heard about that are incredibly realistic, like ship physics, or the tactics that the Japanese used in the battles. So please just stop complaining about every technical mistake you find.

Dutch Jester
29th Nov 2006, 21:48
Ya don't complain the game still is "Da Bomb". Unless of course its really important like if one ship is incredibly horrible to where it can't even function.

Beastttt
30th Nov 2006, 00:47
I'll speak up whenever I please and complain when I see fit
If it gets me a game that is challenging and fun
if I play it solo what is the difference on which side I choose
by you it would be a waste of time
both sides are the same

there are balancing factors that could be applied
allied planes are tougher historiclly more fire power
japanes more maneuverable
american cuisers better armor
Japanese have better torps
the list goes on
at the beginning of WW2 both sides where fairly equal in that 1 side may have had an advantage in 1 area but the other side had advantages in other area
the thing that made battles go 1 way or the other was the commanders and their tactics

then the game just becomes who wants to play the japanese
there needs to be a difference in the sides or what is the of even picking sides just enter to play and take what you are given

you can have your model T in any color so long as it is black
it they are all the same where is the flavor it's all vanilla then,no chocolate,no strawberry,no orange sherbert.......

from the list of ships the yamato is going top be DUMBED DOWN to be the KGV's equal or KGV supersized to be Yamot's equal(9x 18" vs 10x14" they could have at least put in a 16" american BB like the North Carolina she was in service at the start of the war)


Kongo and Texas mostly equal till you look at texas's speed then it turns in to a speed demon compared to what it really could do

why would I want to fight a ship that has my same capabilities but just has a different polygon shape

I'll speak up about any technical mistake I find
what is the use of having a game that is supose to replay history if the same tactics work for both

I've play WW2 naval in many forms in the past 25 yrs
board games
1/1200,1/2400 scale minture wargames
computer(fighting steel,harpoon,Bismark)
all of these games took into account the differences between the counties and where very playable with human opponets


your ideas may work for single player, but for multiplayer they should have allied and Japanese equal in everything, or else one side will have a advantage over the other so they would either have to make the ships in single player equal, or give one side in multiplayer an unfair advantage, or design 2 separate sets ships for multiplayer and single player, I would say that designing 2 sets of ships would be a waste of time, and having the sides on multiplayer unequal would probably annoy a lot more people then getting some technical aspect, that most people don't know about and don't care about, wrong. also maybe they aren’t going for "Authenticity & Realism" in every single aspect of the game, realism has to take some hits to make the game fun (because I don't think real war is fun), and to make it easy to play. also maybe there are other aspects of the game we just haven't heard about that are incredibly realistic, like ship physics, or the tactics that the Japanese used in the battles. So please just stop complaining about every technical mistake you find.

chip5541
30th Nov 2006, 05:16
Be nice :rasp:

I am sure that whatever is missed on the tech specs side will more than likely be modded at some point but until the game is in our hands we really wont know to what extend the balancing factors are. Does that make sence?:scratch: