PDA

View Full Version : 1. What would you have liked to see in BSM?



Keir
26th Jun 2007, 09:49
Fairly self explanatory thread to begin with.

chip5541
26th Jun 2007, 09:59
Direct IP connection for Online gameplay.

Custom MP maps (ship availability and play settings for damage, point value, ect.)

Co-Op missions against an enemy AI.

Modding tools for custom maps, skins and reation of new units.

Clan support (ie ranking system)

First person view for planes and ships

Movie playback.

Ability to turn off the hud.

Free camera option.

The use of smoke for hiding ships

More SP missions

Shamrock
26th Jun 2007, 10:39
I would of liked to see a RTS only mode. What I mean by this is to have a game type Called RTS (Real Time Strategy) where manual Vehicle Control is disabled (just for this gametype). I personally loved controlling vehicles, but there were some people not that good at manual control, but enjoyed giving orders to units (I like to call these types of people the Admiral gamers). The problem is if your just giving orders then your going to get dominated by users manually controlling ships and planes.

For instance I got my Dad to pick up this game and He loved giving orders, but grew frustrated because he's just not a typical gamer and suffered terribly in the controlling units aspect. He would have a ball planning out his strategy, giving orders, and watching his fleet carry them out, but he quickly realized that no matter how good his plan was, he would still get dominated by players controlling their ships manually. Plus sometimes I to would like to just have a battle of the minds. Leave who is the better video game player out of the equation and just have the game come down to who has the better Naval Mind.



P.S. Keir, I don't want to blow my whole load so to speak in this thread. I have many more suggestions for customization, Xbox Live options, Server options, DLC, etc. I'm assuming you will have separate threads for these things so I'll hold that stuff off. If your not then let me know and I'll post more in this thread.

Shamrock
26th Jun 2007, 11:18
Also one other important thing.

We need a skill based party matchmaking system. Halo 2, Saints Row, Chromehounds, and the recently released ShadowRun all have this type of matchmaking. This is going to have to be standard in future games because 360 gamers are just fed up with not being able to play with friends in ranked games and not being able to matched up against similarly skilled teams vs team battles. It's no fun playing 4 friends vs 4 Random's and it's sure not fun being one of those 4 randoms playing a group of friends.

I'd like to point you to this thread on Xbox.com (http://forums.xbox.com/8282653/ShowPost.aspx) that has become absolutely massive. It's filled with literally over 1000 replies of gamers wanting party system matchmaking to become standard in all games.


Note: When that thread first started it was thought MS made rules against party systems. Since the thread has begun MS has clarified that party systems are not illegal and they are going to do more to help developers make party systems if they choose to.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
26th Jun 2007, 13:58
intressting could be........

» mapeditor
» dedicated server
» lobby whit chat
» in game voice chat
» new ranking system (like csports)
» better clan support
» shipeditor (that you can choice the ships or installations you wanna at start and how they are fitted so you have alltimes new situations in all maps)
» better damage controle (for example you use keys num1-3 for it and that you can type it in game and in battle)
» to add bots in server (for train) whit different levels
» free name choice whitout account
» no gamespy!!:mad2:
» possible server ban

more soon
if anyone wanna discuss things in TS contact me and i register you in CSF TS!!

Scipio65
26th Jun 2007, 14:45
I culled through the previous threads that have been up for months and worked out a list of the items I would like to see, in the priority that I like them. Some ideas/items repeat between sections.

1. Scenario editor.
A. Blank maps, with and without islands, with host definable ships / bases, or a player’s choice selection list based on points
B. Host controlled Fog of war settings for these. Let the host control the level of intel available on the strat map. From a standard default like it is now thru to no automatic enemy info on strat map at all. This last setting would allow for manual placement of markers on the strat map.
C. Random battle generator
D. Online coop play against AI opponents

2. Multiplayer features
A. once a match starts allow the game to pick the best host based on connectivity. The host just picks the settings, while the "connection" host keeps it running smooth. The connection host doesn't choose to be "it".
B. Allow a match to stay open even if a host leaves.
Allow players to be added to a match after it has started, up to the max amount per side.
C. Identify speakers on the screen

3. Change battlefield intel in several ways.
A. Allow aircaft to be seen, but not the payload type or expended payload status be seen, until the units are much closer than current.
B. Allow terrain that physically blocks ship visibility to also block visibility from radar
C. Host controlled Fog of war settings for these. Let the host control the level of intel available on the strat map. From a standard default like it is now thru to no automatic enemy info on strat map at all. This last setting would allow for manual placement of markers on the strat map.

4. Fix the strategic air ops so we don’t have to waste planes to launch new ones quickly.
A. I like the idea here that someone proposed that once you tell them to land you lose control of them, at some predetermined distance from the field.
B. Allow the aircraft squadrons (of same type and owner) to merge when they have losses.

5. Allow subs to use much slower speeds and not be visible thru DD depth charge attack views. Forces the DD commanders to drop depth charges blind in these situations. Related to this, allow DD owners to specify depth charge attack paths/points on the strat map that AI can run.

6. Control over the land based AA and artillery forts. Also be able to do damage control on land base weapons and launch facilities.

7. Tactical Air Ops…
A. CA and BB launched recon planes
B. Add limited amounts of specific purpose kamikaze plane options to certain historical maps, after Summer of 1944.
C. Airplane free roam cockpit view in all plane types that is easier to use on XBOX360 (Y button maybe, like on bombers?)

8. Add (to the ability to pass units to other players) the ability on some or all of the units the ability to assign different weapon systems to another player. Maybe limit it to only if they are a spectator. Exa: let me man the helm and artillery of my battleship, and my teammate man the AA guns.

9. Weather and nighttime battle elements.
A. Limited visibility and thus harder targeting
B. Adding searchlights to ships for nighttime battles would be extremely interesting.

10. Allow ships to fire artillery indirectly over islands and such.

11. Give carriers limited secondary guns that they actually had (5 inch dual purpose)

12. Give destroyers the ability to put out smoke screens

13. Better point system based on each players role. Plane op players should not be penalized by excessive losses. Clearer distinction on the post match summary screens of where point gains and losses came from.

Lexxy
26th Jun 2007, 14:47
Hey guys.

I'm going to have a think about this later tonight and I'll make a post then. Briefly though, allow me to reflect upon the ideas posted so far from my standing point.

chip5541

Direct IP Connectivity

Good Idea. Most modern server browsers feature direct IP functionality. Currently however my only point would be the lack of servers to really qualify for this.

Customizable Multiplayer Settings And Maps

Yes, Yes And Yes. Think "Worms Armageddon"-like customizability and the open ended nature of the game will promote a positive user reaction and the possibility of community game types. On the flipside, customized servers can be annoying for users who wish to play a vanilla game.

Co-Op missions against an enemy AI.

Unsure. Possible high bandwidth overhead for a feature which would lack replayable value.

Modding tools for custom maps, skins and reation of new units.

Possibly the most important point. Possibly implement the LUA scripting to an SDK model for "true mod" support. (This would allow for MP/SP user missions which great dynamic capabilitys) This game has the potential to be the naval form of the EA Battlefield franchise with these features. Simple authorware for maps would also increase the shelf life exponentially. This point raises a whole new thread of implementation problems though, that must be discussed.

Clan support (ie ranking system)

I've never been a fan of persistant ranking systems. However, the novelty value of multiplayer names being tagged with a naval rank which increases with total logged score, would be very appealing.

First person view for planes and ships

Currently implemented for planes already. A cockpit would be very "next-gen" and increase the appeal to flight-sim fans. As for ships, the view from the bridge would be of high novelty appeal, but low pay-off. Difficult to achieve also when 3D models are to a certain scale.

Movie playback.

Demos! Yes, demos are always good to have, especially if the file format is lightweight so they can be shared.

Ability to turn off the hud.

Should be easy enough, implementation wise. Might be a worthy hot key?

Free camera option.

Excellent idea. This would allow the consumer to re-enact scenes which he or she saw in trailers and really get a feel of the scope of the game. In my first week of play, I missed this feature specifically. Again, subject to implementation. This should be configurable, server-side.

The use of smoke for hiding ships

Could be interesting. Possible though, that it could be ugly on screen - Big blotches of smoke (even when rendered nicely) - are still big obscuring blotches of smoke.

More SP missions

Skirmish, comes to mind - although this could tie into a map editing feature.

***
Shamrock

RTS Only Mode

The blend of RTS and manual control is one of the franchises highlighted and distinctive features. I can see where you're coming from, perhaps a configurable setting should be configured? - I must say though, I wouldnt join such flagged servers online if it were in the current build.


*** (Skipping discussed points)
Akagi

Dedicated server

Definately - although not enough on its own. There are other ways of coping with the current server issues which I will post later tonight.

Lobby

Again, Yes. A lobby area is beneficial to online users. This should of course feature a MOTD from eidos.

in game voice chat

Modern and useful. Good idea. Must be implemented with the ability to prevent abuse though.

Ship Editor

Could be very, very cool indeed. "Hardpoints" could be refittable and various ship functions could be swapped out. On the flipside, this lacks historical authenticity.

Better Damage Control

It's a good call on the HCI issue surrounding the repair screen. We should discuss this more.

Bots

I have to disagree here. Keep AI offline. I generally abandon Counter-Strike servers which feature bots - When I go online, I want to play against human skill : I can enjoy the AI offline.

free name choice whitout account

A game account these days is a good idea to keep track of server/client abuse. Plus, a ranked or clan user model cannot be achieved without an index to the user.

no gamespy!!

Completely dependent on what platform would replace it.

possible server ban

Might be a bit harsh for the current BSM community size. I would say in moderation, a Kick with a 15 minute cool off period would be more effective.

Anyway, hope these comments are thought provoking. I look forward to your responses.

Cheers,

-Lexxy.

chip5541
26th Jun 2007, 15:04
I would like to add to the server ban and request more detailed server options. Specific ban type (perm, temp, custom) and server control over game options.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
26th Jun 2007, 15:32
Bots

I have to disagree here. Keep AI offline. I generally abandon Counter-Strike servers which feature bots - When I go online, I want to play against human skill : I can enjoy the AI offline.

this should be available for clans and clan training!
to study new tactics.
in random game no one need BOTs but in intern fights we need it.


I would like to add to the server ban and request more detailed server options. Specific ban type (perm, temp, custom) and server control over game options.

sounds ok for me!!

» also i forget 1 point!
"late war weapons"
many IJN ships in late war time are fitted whit new weapon systems like 24 or 28 pipe missle launcher ,this should be available too!

mortalstakes
26th Jun 2007, 15:41
I agree with a lot of the ideas already posted here.

Skirmish mode is a must. But as some others have said, a level or map editor would also be an excellent addition.

The ability to choose starting positions, or position your entire fleet as you see fit. This could make for some very interesting maps/battles.

The scoring system needs some work. Its unbalanced for air ops and at times totally unpredictable.

Give the host more options. Adjustable radar. I need to think more about this aspect.

What about an "admiral" chair in each match, where one player is in overall control, possibly with the ability to reassign units and will. This one player could be in charge of the match and we could assign necesarry functions to them.

Coop campaign would be nice. A longer campaign, seen equally from both sides.

What about implementing a RTS style rank system for units? This could be especially valuable for planes. Like on command and conquer, where your units rank up as they do more damage - the rewards could be slightly more speed/manueverability, harder to kill, et cetera

what about being able to get more than one team mate on a ship - lets say you have one ship left and three team mates - one on artillery, one on flak, one navigating

all of the ideas I've seen posted so far are excellent - I'll be back later after I've thought about it some more

It3llig3nc3
26th Jun 2007, 19:41
As a starting note I would like to say that while I respect all the great ideas listed here and beck on the normal forum I take this "exercise" now as to represent my own "selfish" individual view. I feel it is important for EIDOS to see the variety of flavors in the player's minds. Obviously forum exchange might have had influenced me however I try to keep it to minimum - only for now.

I have 3 categories in my mind for elemens I missed:

1. General gameplay
--> On PC the controls and unit management is kinda "sub standard". When I see a map with units I expect a few things such as right mouse click to give me action options, be able to multi select units by "boxing" them with the mouse, etc.
--> Commanding of the sea units - have some basic maneuvers available so I'm not always busy at steering, e.g. 90 degree turn or circle around a point or zig-zag or just simply order "follow" another unit (NO grouping / NO attack)
--> Air units - couldn't find proper control. Tried joystick, tried mouse, tried keyboard with various settings - was not good.
--> Managing the air squads very limited - impacted both single/multi player mode (e.g. varying the # of planes in the squad, flying formation, etc..)
--> Damage model and relative strength of the units in the game - we debated this over and over in the forum. My main point would be weapon ranges and speed.
--> Map/Scenario Editor
--> Smoke for ships - very typical "weapon".
--> Ghost camera (free camera) once died or to switch to to overview the battle (well since Supreme Commander the expectation is a full zoom in/out from unit level to strategic map :D )
--> Better unit order / movement planning - e.g. currently as soon as manually selecting the unit it forgets the order was given. Why not "remember" the order so I can choose to put the unit back on that?
--> More advanced AI (knows better how to get around islands, avoid other units, etc...)

2. Single Player Mode
--> The campaign was short and too simple. In my view it started off as an "arcade" game commanding one unit making "stunts" like crossing a strait and then expanded into a semi strategy mode with more units under command but I never really felt that I'm the commander in charge.
--> Jap campaign and completing the US one is a must.
--> Skirmish or any other "free form" practice mode (without scripted AI scenarios like the missions) capable of playing on my own without network.

3. Multiplayer
-->Standalone dedicated server function
-->Better Player and Server browser with filters, favorites/friends, better lobby, NO GAMESPY registration
-->Player management
-->Why can't join a game DURING the battle? if somebody drops out for example
-->Free form unit choice for each player (I want to decide if I need 2 DDs or trade it off for something else), like "buying the units at the beginning.
-->Server and connection status (not just "high latency" warning 5 seconds before dropout)
-->Communication tools such as advanced in-game chat and voice support
-->For a concept and game like this I would definitely expect much larger maps and player numbers on each side.
-->More type of "winning" criteria - not just the "destroy all key enemy units".

Kai Robin
26th Jun 2007, 22:04
Wow,

Could you call this anymore, open? Ok I'll try to sum things up then-

Gameplay-
I think I speak for alot of us when I say we'd gladly trade scripted missions for a fully dynamic campaign, and dynamic MP gameplay BSM's community was chopped in half from release date through the following months after due to stagnating, repetative gameplay. Honestly though, there's no reason we can't have both, SSI's Great Naval Battles did both just fine.

Unique Missions/Alternate History
There really is NO NEED to stick with historical battles, we've read them in history books, seen'em on discovery channel, and have certainly had enough of them. Why not have engagements between the US and Japanese line of battle at their finest?

Also how about some lighthearted missions? Why not capture the flag with PT boats, or a mission with massive amount of PT's and DD's vs a couple of BB's? Or something fresh like a beach-landing?

MP-
In game support for MICS, CLANS AND FRIENDS...PLEASE, THERE IS A REASON THIS IS IN BOLD LETTERS!

Graphics-
Being the only one of its type, it would be a doozy if we could see this game take one real next-gen graphics, of course there'd need to be options to tone it way way down for those who couldn't handle it, but it would be nice.

More exciting death throes-
Ships splitting in two, magazines tearing ships apart, bows defiantly pointing into the air before being submerged into davy jones locker, these things give a real sense of satisfacition when an enemy is defeated.

Weather-
Varied battle conditions help keep it fresh, we'd love battles in the rain, night, ect.


Carriers-
4 Wings in MP, 3 just feels really really limiting, because it really takes 3 wings to make a difference against an objective unless your wide open, so if you give yourself 1 escort your stuck with 2 wings which are likley to do nill against a CA and up. I'm not even a CV player but I feel their pain.

OR

as a way to speed things up, it was suggested that instead of having to wait for a wing to fully land, once a group of planes is x-amount from landing, say .5, they are automatically locked into landing and are no longer in the players control thus freeing up a slot to launch.

Subs-
I'm not a sub player either, but sub player face 2 major problems-
1-You have to be practically ontop of someone to hit because ships move quickly
2-Once you are spotted at lvl 3 even if you dive to lvl 4 you can still be tracked.

I think by making the subs invisible at lvl 4 it would benefit the sub players.

Ships-
Ships in this game are teh best. But I think we all would appreciate a .2-.3 range increase for all gun ranges. At the moment sometimes you have to get so close you feel like the enemy sailors could trade sushi for hamburgers at lunch time.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
26th Jun 2007, 22:22
added to my first post...........

1. More player slots.....10 or 12.
2. Torps invisible on radar....as it should be.

mortalstakes
26th Jun 2007, 22:28
I like the idea of varied weather.

The subs:

I also think being detected at depth level 4 is ridiculous. The "glass bottom destroyer" is one of the few things I really don't like. If you can't see them on radar they should be invisible.

Also, they should be harder to sink with planes - the ease with which this can be done makes them almost worhtless until all the radar carrying ships are removed from combat.

I would like to see some sort of option to allow a team to talk without the enemy hearing before the match begins. Some decisions have to be made and implemented immediately and if you're playing with new people you end up wasting valuable time at the beginning of the match.

mortalstakes
26th Jun 2007, 22:35
I don't think this has been touched on yet:

I would like to see point boosting eliminated. For those of us that earn our scores and belong in the top ranks it is discouraging to see someone earn more points on one map then we have in the entire game due to point stacking.

In single player this can be done by making a finite number of planes in carriers and airfields. MP will be a lot trickier.

I don't know if I like the idea of leaving historical fact completely out. I would rather have the SP stick to precedence to lend it some authenticity. If they include a level editor or map maker of some sore we can concoct whatever crazy scenarios we wish.

Lexxy
26th Jun 2007, 23:35
What would you have liked to see in BSM?

Foreward:

This brief article outlines my views on eidos hungary's "Battlestations Midway"; specifically covering areas which may of effected it's player demographic. It is worth noting my comments will be heavily orientated around the PC version, however in any critisms I will keep the design requirements of console development in mind.

Article:

Although subject to warm reviews, Battlestations Midway was criticized for "lacking deep strategy for strategy gamers - and lacking deep action for action gamers". Albeit this apparently by design, some game critics hit the nail on the head well in advance of today: Expect cult-multiplayer status, and pray for a sequel. [PCGAMER UK].

As a primarily online gamer, I am starved for multiplayer servers. There are busy times, but there also quiet times. This is truly a disappointment, given there are indie 2D titles out there in the world with busy, 24/7 server lists : A game of this scope and publicity should sport a large user-base. Partial blame lies with deployment failure on the PC platform: the port failed to include contingency for version control. Each new version has fractured the community into segments which are incompatible with each other - a problem which plagued games during the 1990's. Valve's STEAM content distribution DRM has eased the problem somewhat, providing automatic content updates to subscribers on their service: but perhaps too late? - I believe on average, a new player, having recently purchased the game will be severly put-off if he/she was to find no servers : especially if multiplayer was the intention. Low effort, high result solutions include persistent ("dedicated") servers and internal version checking. A dedicated server model must remain logged with the master server until they are shut down, or the problem is not solved. Active games, although not joinable, provide physcological evidence of community activity. Ideally, these "active" games should be spectatable if slots are available. Essentially, bolster the online community and ensure there is significant visibility of both user and server. Cross platform protocol is an alternative, but questionable given the current status of the windows live implementation.

Having noted the low effort solutions, I would like to discuss the high effort ones which yield even greater benefits. I talk of replayability, something which has been a problem for Battlestations Midway; and a major recurring critism from professional reviewers to online bloggers. The problem is: there arn't nearly enough multiplayer maps. This is ironic, given that die-hard gamers will absorb hundreds of hours of VALVe's Counter-Strike Source "de_dust2" and never really ask for more. This implys a gameplay issue is present - something which kills the replay value of Battlestations Midway's online prowess. It's my best guess that a combination of the fixed nature of scenarios, limited forces and omnipresent radar system are to blame. In the "Islands Of Solomon" strategys are emerging amongst the regular players which guarentee victory. It also seems, that unless the identical "counter-strategy" is used, summary loss is to be expected. The same appears to be happening with other maps. This predictability is an issue which I would of liked to of seen fixed: there needs to be a second tier for error. Larger, more diverse maps supporting 16 to 24 players are one way to achieve this. Radar omnipresence ties into the "click and command" strategy aspect of the game: but also reduces the skill required to command. Ship radar range should of been significantly reduced, and to increase diversity of maps radar land implacements should of been added as a new tactical target. The binocular system could of been a great way to share enemy positions with your friends. I believe these ideas to be much more tactical and dynamic, allowing for cunning - and more purpose to the game. Secondary targets such as radar implacements would greatly help to achieve this.

Other concept ideas (Digressing from items which I would definately liked to of seen) include respawning respawning reinforcements, perhaps moderated by a E.A. Battlefield inspired ticket system. These ships could spawn from the map boundries while a team was in play. Additionally, timed land-base (yard) repair could be a possibility: come-backs from ruins are thrilling.

Scenario-wise, the easiest and most effortless way to expand replayability is through community mods. Although I understand there can be IPR issues surrounding the release of authorware or inhouse tools, (plus no doubt, the fact that your tools are x86 and would need integrating into an console environment to avoid producing an inferior port) - I would highly recommend to the reading bodies of this article that even a simple scenario modding tool is included - even if it only works with included physical maps to retain the commercial viability of downloadable content packs. Being able to move starting positions and setup custom fleets would exponentially increase replability - and thus, users. Anything more, such as access to the LUA scripting system, or search path based modding helps fortify the community with conversions and mods - good for publicity, and good for business.

Overall, and in summary, customization is the key. This game had the potential to be the "(E.A.) Battlefield 2" of the strategy/action, naval genre. So, in a line, I would of liked to of seen BSM reach it's potential.

***
27th June, 2007
Alexander "Lexxy" Ali
poetry_through_coding[at]hotmail[dotcom]

mortalstakes
27th Jun 2007, 00:31
Lexxy wrote:

Having noted the low effort solutions, I would like to discuss the high effort ones which yield even greater benefits. I talk of replayability, something which has been a problem for Battlestations Midway; and a major recurring critism from professional reviewers to online bloggers. The problem is: there arn't nearly enough multiplayer maps. This is ironic, given that die-hard gamers will absorb hundreds of hours of VALVe's Counter-Strike Source "de_dust2" and never really ask for more. This implys a gameplay issue is present - something which kills the replay value of Battlestations Midway's online prowess. It's my best guess that a combination of the fixed nature of scenarios, limited forces and omnipresent radar system are to blame. In the "Islands Of Solomon" strategys are emerging amongst the regular players which guarentee victory. It also seems, that unless the identical "counter-strategy" is used, summary loss is to be expected. The same appears to be happening with other maps. This predictability is an issue which I would of liked to of seen fixed: there needs to be a second tier for error. Larger, more diverse maps supporting 16 to 24 players are one way to achieve this. Radar omnipresence ties into the "click and command" strategy aspect of the game: but also reduces the skill required to command. Ship radar range should of been significantly reduced, and to increase diversity of maps radar land implacements should of been added as a new tactical target. The binocular system could of been a great way to share enemy positions with your friends. I believe these ideas to be much more tactical and dynamic, allowing for cunning - and more purpose to the game. Secondary targets such as radar implacements would greatly help to achieve this.

This is an idea I advocated in my initial PM to Keir, and I agree completely. Limiting the radar range and relying more on team communication to ascertain enemy positions would give the game a much better vibe for the designated time period.

But radar installations to be eliminated, thats an excellent idea I hadn't considered. Many of the maps are, as you say, limited to one "super" strategy and obvious counter strategy. I would also like to see this changed, and this is one of the ideas that could possibly accomplish this. Being able to choose starting positions and possibly units (make a list of units acceptable to the map and some system similar to command points for unit selection prior to match) might also guarentee the diversity we're seeking.

Shamrock
27th Jun 2007, 04:15
I'd also like to of seen Troop Transports ships incorporated into multiplayer.


For instance it would of been nice if say both teams have a troop transport or can make troop transports. Maybe put a small island in the middle of the map and the team that gets it's transport their first safely, unloads some troops who then man AA Guns, a coastal fortress, etc. That would of been pretty fun IMO. Sort of a Race to the key position with a reward for accomplishing the task at hand. Imagine the strategy involved. Do you make 2 Battle ships, or only go 1 battle ship and 1 Transport. Does your enemy do the same? Or does he make 2 Battleships? Does your airforce escort your Transport trying to caputre the island? or Does your airforce go attack bases/enemy ships? See this creates more choices which opens up gameplay.

I could really see that being fun if both teams had a air base and were directly across from each other. That would make capturing the island key as one team could then fly straight across while the other would have to fly around the AA guns.

Scipio65
27th Jun 2007, 13:39
Most of the items in the previous few posts; seeing torps on the strat map; the ability to free place units before matches; and the issues with the radar being so effective at spotting and identifying enemy units, all tie into the same topic of battlefield info, the whole "fog of war" issue. If the effectiveness of the automatic intel on the strat map are adjusted so that hosts can control these levels, then you could really fix a lot of issues at once and create lots of different strategic problems on the same maps, even with the same units, over and over without things being nearly so predictable.

Add to that some ability to free place units before a match; and you could really force teams to have to work very strategically to win battles.

Imagine a Solomons with some flexibility as to where you place the naval bases and air bases, or maybe even have the option to change that mix up, and then throw in a lot more lack of info, a lot more fog of war, on the strat map, force players to use their binoculars, talk to each other about what they see, place their own markers on the strat maps, and have to use scout planes, etc... Even a small map like that becomes a lot more replayable.

Now imagine the options on a Coral Sea or Sibuyan map. Surprise could become an actual tactic in the game.

chip5541
27th Jun 2007, 14:23
For PC users more joystick support. This includes teh X-52.

Dremora Warlord
27th Jun 2007, 15:53
Well, a skirmish mode would be cool. I would like to be able to also use a map editor. Like stated in the other thread, that is one part of the game that got boring, we knew exactly where everything would be. It still is a fun, and great game, but when the map is cookie cutter, it seems to lose something.

This is a fare fetched idea, but have you ever heard of the game called Naval Ops or something like that? I would like to see a match selection that goes like this.

Ranked (If we figure out a good way to do this)

Player

Skirmish

Custom

Basically, in N. O. you could build your own fleet, and ships. My friend had a twin hulled Yamato BB. Though this is far out what BSM really is, it would be fun to be able to customize a ship like your Hound on the game Chromehounds.

Objective games like VIP would be great. Surigia (SP) came close to this, but I would like a mission like periscope threatening but for multiplayer. The guys have to get the ships across the map, while avoiding four enemy submraines. Of course, we would have to figure out how to do this without it being stacked.

Like many have mentioned, it would be cool to be able to either walk around on deck once your dead, or man some flak guns on land or ships, or fly a ghost plane that doesn't appear on the living players screen.

Also, something small but I think the game would be better with is a mocing camera for the shipyards and airfields. Well, there is what i though should be in the game, or would have been cool!

Also, I think that more sinking animations would be awesome. Like for instance, a ship breaking in half, or her going nearly striahgt down if a sub was stalking her and filling her stern with water.

Hmm, I mentioned mines a while ago to Keir in my PM...

I think it is a given that we also need Mic icons.

sblendo
27th Jun 2007, 17:30
I've read everything so far, so any repeats just implies agreement.
I'm primarily Xbox 360 BS:M player and put Online play over SP. Online Multi-Player is where most of my comments will be directed.

Game Play:

• Mic Icon to show who is speaking in both lobby and match

• Mines and Mine Sweepers.

• Online Co-Op Training. This could be co-op version of the "challenges"

• More incentive to land planes. Many ideas have been stated, not sure if any are the perfect answer. I hate splashing them but too often it is the only way to have a chance at winning. Perhaps when commanding to land they go grey on the map when within a certain distance (Kai Robin had mentioned) and are locked into landing, freeing up to launch more planes. If ship sinks during this sequence they are back in play. "Leveling up" is an interesting idea as well for planes that successfully complete a mission and return, however both ideas are not foolproof or immune to abuse, but are good starting points.

• Keep Kamakaze tactics as a non factor. While they did exist in reality, there is no regard for life in a game and if it were effective, it's all anyone would do in a game setting. I am very grateful for the handling of this issue in the first installment of the game.

• No torps on the map. Thats what Binoculars are for.

• Co-Op "Challenges" great way to practice tactics for teamwork.

• When reduced to spectator ability to be assigned into ship. Many have mentioned this. Assigning Spectator to AA or Helm would keep them in play when no units are available to give.

• Adding on the last one. MP map where very limited amount of ships are available with no ship yard and player select in lobby is choosing "position" on each ship. Helm, AA, Artilary.

• Skirmish Mode/Map editor. Others have done a better job than i can detailing, but I'll just say i'd like one.

• Random map. Like Choral Sea where both sides are equal but placement is random. Sometimes it's even sometimes you are in a near no win situation. Such is life. But could be very exciting trying to deal with it.

• Asset allocation prior to match. Both sides have equal assets to place on their side of the map (be it ground placements or ships only or combo) Will add to new scenarious over same tactics over and over. Having a number of map templates to choose from would add to this.

• Player Ping

• If host drops, game switchest to next best connection for host.

• Player rank (military type rank: ensign, captain, admiral...etc) to separate the Vets from the new players. Matchmaking as well that keeps the skill levels together.

Look and Feel:

• More smoke and fire from big guns. Take advantage of the sound systems many of us have on both our Console and Computer rigs. Bombardment sequence from Flags of our Fathers.

• More sinking animations as others have pointied out.

• Weather, waves, fog, sunrise, sunset, rain. Night would be difficult but possible as a selected option. But if MP maps are limited, I'd prefer other things over night battle.

Cpt.sharp
27th Jun 2007, 18:50
Radar, either make the maps larger or make the rader smaller, i dont want to see all the enermy right from the start. I want to send out seach planes to scout the area and find the enermy formation. I want to sneek in with my battleships and use my destroyers to draw fast ships onto my battleship guns. This can only be done with some sort of fog of war.

A lack of Custom MP maps is what some might say the strongest downpoint in BSM at the moment. Custom maps and more control for server settings is a must to make a game last. There should be ship limits set by the host. IE 2 bb 1cv per side ect. With out custom maps a online game will slowly die away. Its that simple.


Modding tools for custom maps, skins and reation of new units.
Look what modding did for Battlefield 1942, Modding tools make games last longer then there sale by date. Modding tools will make a community like ours grow. I personly love companys that want to show off mods that there fan base have made. (like red orchestra) this will encourage people to help the battlestation game grow.


First person view for planes and ships
I think a cockpit view will help with making this game more relistic, i would love to see a bridge view. close in when the big guns fire and shell splashs raining on you. WOW. It will bring you in closer to the action, people will love it, i know i would.

Broadside fire. Maybe a button that once all guns are ready to fire you can fire a broadside (all guns fire at once) The ship could roll and the smoke of the gun fire could be seen from far away. not a game changing point but it would look great.

The use of smoke for hiding ships was a valid tactic in both world wars and it should be represented here. It will make the game look great!! I think it should be limited by time and/or maybe ship type. Like give this option to only DD's and CL's This will give the DDs and CLs more importants in a game. (should stop people picking just BBs and CVs for custom maps)


Weather should change and reflect sighting. I dont want to be in carm seas all the time, i want to roll and have the ships gun be effected by this. My acc and speed should suffer because of the poor sea condition.

nighttime battles would be great. Limited sight but with starshells (kinda like flairs) and search lights would be a great sight.


for MP an overall commander. with everyone given the posiblity to pick there own ships (see above) i think a person chosen at random should be able to give orders to the team. If you follow the orders you get more points. (this is tricky because the commander could be wanting to ruin the game) to this end maybe a voting system?

Wolfpack Apone
27th Jun 2007, 23:49
haha ive been at work all day so i guess i missed my chance to post some good points thinks you guys got pretty much most of the technical stuff covered.

I like the points about fog of war and lettign the room stay open if the host disconnects (like COD3) a few things im a bit iffy about are the map editor, I think would be a great tool for PC users but it would be tough for 360 users unless we had a way to upload our files onto xbox live.

I like the post about more realistic whaether and geographical effects, it would be nice to have to use spot lights on your boat or flares to illuminate the ocean. And as thw game progresses the time of day and wheather would change too would be cool (imagine sailing you BB through a squall or hurricane :eek: )

Subs should be made more useful, the abilitiy to stay under water and undetected for longer with a much larger oxygen supply (many boats could stay submerged for days) and increase the number of depth levels and arrange into 10 meter increments upto say 200 meters(give the sub a true "salt water depth to keel" gauge measured in meters). hull pressure should start to apply at about 150m depth and as you go down it increases and so does the amount of damage (decreas the amount of damage by decreasing the forward thrust therebye decreasing the overall pressure on the forward bulkhead (damge is still exerted at depths of 150m or greater but to a lesser degree))
To counter this give the DDs variable depth depthcharges allow the player to set the depth at which the depth charge will explode upto a max depth of 150m (like the current game a sub can escape a DD but at the expence of its hull). Also a little graphical note give the depth cahrges the imense explosion of water at the back of the ship when one detonates (shooting plumes of water into the air).

Also give the subs hydrophones so when the player is in a sub they can hear the screws of nearbye boats and the cavitations of depth charges being dropped this will add to the realism.

I MP maps like solomon limit the number of BBs that the shipyards can build and make the players use CAs and DDs (bit more skill needed with these)
Although I love playing the historical battles make a few more maps like solomon where you start with a blank slate and build your fleet accordingly many dif maps not nesecarily based on true events.

A complete move away from the pacific and into the atlantic, theres nothin id love more than to command a german wolfpack and sink some merchant shipping :lmao:

the campaign needs to be a lot longer and slightly harder id completed it on veteran within 24hrs of purchase and id doeasnt have to be a coherant story based on a henry walker kinda character but levels could skip from say a battle in the med to the barents sea or sub hunting in the atlantic. Id like to see an opposing campaign too so both the allies and axis have thier own campaigns (like CnC)

Sith Darthfoxx
28th Jun 2007, 02:40
In addition to the great ideas mentioned above:

Single Player:
Have an Allies and Axis campaign.

A Pacific Example: It'd of been nice to have had a map with the Britsh Navy using the Hermes and Prince of Wales. One with a couple of Aussie Cruisers would of been nice too. It was diappointing not being able to play as the IJN.

An Atlantic Example: Majority Britsh fleet, a Canadian Corvette Convoy Escort map. US ships. German, Italian, French ships. The British attack on Taranto is a must!!

Keep Veteran and the Challenges HARD! No more Wussy Truk Missions. There's no replay value in an easy mission.

We've already got the maps supplied in Single Player, bring them over for Multiplayer use as well. I'd love to run Force Z in Multiplayer.

Multiplayer:
To further the Fog of War ideas. With Lower sighting ranges give us Radar Installations, Coastal Watchers, the ability to launch scout planes from ships that carried them (The Tone CA would be much more useful being able to launch it's seaplanes). Your Mavis, Petes and Catalina's would be much more important. Time of Day and Weather should also affect the Area of the Fog of War.

If your in control of an airfield or shipyard the ability to switch to it's AA or Coastal Guns/Fortresses just like on the Ships. I can't believe this wasn't included in the original release.

WRT Glass Bottom DDs, a Sub at Level 4 has to be inivisable from the DDs DC view. An idea I was floating was the DD player can't access the underwater DC view unless he has an active ping on a SS, that way if the SS goes to Level 4, outside of Sonar or comes to a full stop the DD loses the underwater DC view but could still drop from the Surface view. Being able to loft some DCs off to the side of a DD would be nice too.


Definetly include What Ifs! you can keep the Single Player Campaigns Historically Acurate but make sure we get the (an example) German Plan Z for Multiplayer (if BS2 is Atlantic based). Having Sea Stukas Dive Bomb the Ark Royal from the Graf Zepplin is what computer/console gaming is all about.

Also unit effectiveness will have to be tweaked to keep the game balanced, when we finally get to use F6Fs and Corsairs the Zero will need an upgrade to make it playable. Historical Plane and ship speeds and their combat effectiveness are nice but not at the expense of gaming balance. Lets Keep this an Action RTS and not turn it into a die hard Sim. (And I'm a HUGE Sim fan, I just find this Action RTS genre refreshing)

Keep Feeding us Downloaded Content!!! Nothing and I mean Nothing keeps the life of a game going like DLC. And not BS DLC that should already of been included in the game but DLC to continue it's life span. Sibuyan Sea was a big lift for BS:M online play. Another MP map or two would give it another online boast. When people who didn't buy the game right away but are thinking about it hear that the game is kept fresh and the online kept fresh with DLC it makes it a more attractive buy. I just recently bought Oblivion and a big plus for me was the amount and usefulness of the DLC for it, without the DLC I'd of passed on it since it's an "old" game now.

Oh, and call Clan Support Fleet Support.

Dogmeatz
28th Jun 2007, 05:07
Wow i think my list is going to keep growing as i think of em all but heres a start.....

* Single Player Campaign needed alot more repayabilty length and variation in my humble opinion. Maybe branching mission endings or a seperate 'free patrol campaign' like in Destroyer Command could have been added.

* Skirmish Mode and a Map Editor would make this game alot longer lasting especially for any1 who dosnt get the chance to play online

* Official Mod tools and support always seems to add to the popularity of games, as it involves the community making a great variaty of versions of the game thus extending its life/replayability. Ive even bought PC games just because i wanted to play a certain mod.

* Online Setup - Needs serious modernization
- Lobby Chat, Player List and News (so pple know when patches out etc) are essential features i reckon.
- the ability to either make and exchange new maps or maybe the option of changing starting forces for multi maps by host, maybe they set buy points and u purchase your fleet etc.
- Buddy System, Voice over IP, Dedicated servers would be a fine idea as well but not essential.

* Damage control is in general a little to fast and powerful in my opinion, for instance 3 men on pumps on a BB makes torp planes kinda redundant. If it was toned/slowed down by 25% i think would make a more realistic and fun battle. Perhaps the Host could set a game to Realistic Damage On as a game option when hosting, giving players the damage effects like in SP on Veteran, ie Nasty ! fighting fires becomes critical etc.


* PT boats are not fully finished maybe, there formations dont seem to work in that they all seem to collide with the leader. Also turning on auto torps for all pts in a squad is very timeconsuming, and could be facilitated by my next point a hotkey.

* Game seriously needed more PC Hotkeys, the ALT order system is nice but shows it obvious origins from xbox a few hotkeys for pc would have been nice.
Examples for needed keys - auto move, CAP, Auto Torp on/off, Landing etc.
Being able to save units to Number hotkeys could have been handy as well.
I know if you have only 2 units in a game such keys seem uneccessary, i was more thinking of games when you control large numbers of ships and air.

* Small one here - Camera Shake and Water drops should show when you are in Damage control position, so you still feel them shells hittin and get your socks wet while combating flooding.

* Experience rewards for ships and air crews, would be a nice feature. Especially in Single Player campaign. Also might get around the gameplay problem of having to wait for bombers to land or kamikazi em dilema.

Im sure il think of more an add em as they turn up.

PS Pardon my poor English ........ im Australian ;)

Shamrock
28th Jun 2007, 08:29
More incentive to land planes. Many ideas have been stated, not sure if any are the perfect answer. I hate splashing them but too often it is the only way to have a chance at winning. Perhaps when commanding to land they go grey on the map when within a certain distance (Kai Robin had mentioned) and are locked into landing, freeing up to launch more planes. If ship sinks during this sequence they are back in play. "Leveling up" is an interesting idea as well for planes that successfully complete a mission and return, however both ideas are not foolproof or immune to abuse, but are good starting points.



Great point. Nothing was more unrealistic or felt as cheap as splashing planes in the water for no good reason. What can be done though to prevent it? Tough question.

I would imagine the most effective way would be to send bombers into automatiac land mode the instant they drop their payload. So you drop the bomb and boom, the ships set to land and takes a auto land course and you lose control. Splashing fighters I guess would still need to be allowed because quite frankly you always need to have control of your fighters. This would at least make splashing less likely.

Lexxy
28th Jun 2007, 12:28
Discussion Point: Pilots.

It just popped into my head, so without forethought I'll let you guys bake your noodle with this one:

How about, 40 planes, but only 20 pilots.

-lexxy.

Shamrock
29th Jun 2007, 08:55
Discussion Point: Pilots.

It just popped into my head, so without forethought I'll let you guys bake your noodle with this one:

How about, 40 planes, but only 20 pilots.

-lexxy.


That is interesting, and would be a huge incentive to land. But when I think about it a little more there are a awful lot of planes shot down legit in the game. I've lost my entire air force in some matches without crashing a single plan on purpose. Frankly I'd be pissed off if I ran out of pilots but had planes left.


So lets expand your idea for a moment.

What about 40 planes 20 Veteran Pilots. When you lose them your planes launch with inexperienced pilots. (maybe they take some kind of ratings penalty on maneuverability, speed, how the AI handles dogfighting for planes you don't manually control when the rookies are being used).

So this way you still have plenty of planes, but you want to make sure you land planes because if your crashing planes, once you lose your 20 Veteran pilots (which would be your first 20 planes for each plane type) your using the Rookies (for the remaining 20 planes of each plane type). This is also a realistic way to handle it as Carriers/Air Bases launched in waves and used more experienced pilots first. The Movie Midway (with Mr. Miagi:p ) comes to mind as a example of this.;)

Note: I was just using 40 planes (20 Veteran pilots/20 inexperienced pilots) as a example. It can be applied to any number of planes

For instance

20 Zeros (10 Veteran pilots, 10 inexperience pilots
20 Dive Bombers (10 Veteran pilots, 10 inexperienced pilots)
etc. etc..

I would be very hesitant to crash any planes on purpose if I was losing my Veteran pilots

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
29th Jun 2007, 11:15
Discussion Point: limited ammo

i think an good idea is the option "limited ammo" for all ships!
means ... maybe 200 or 300 grenades on bb for primary guns!
same for secondary! so you learn to aim and in reality there are no unlimited grenades too.

also i wish an "in game" timer, im an other game i played before someone create this as tool . you can check times in game whit this like........
how long i need whit my ships from P1 --->P2.
is not so important but a idea

wishes AKAGI

It3llig3nc3
29th Jun 2007, 14:08
Limited ammo is a good point - we were discussing that earlier as well indeed. I agree that if that can be implemented correctly it would add a lot to the "strategy".

I was lazy to read back to see if we listed this, if so, here is my vote on it:
The ability to control the ship's main guns independently (one by one or with some flexibility to "group" some or all of them). It can increase the ship's capability to either deal with multiple targets (front, back) or use a full broadside fire against a main target.

Some said the "kamikaze" tactic to be kept "discarded" in the game. From one hand I tend to agree, however if we would reduce the number of available planes per platform significantly it could result in a more careful approach to this. Combine this with the pilot concept above (including skill) and you can create a fine balance that can keep this type of "weapon" in it's place.

Shamrock
29th Jun 2007, 15:18
Some said the "kamikaze" tactic to be kept "discarded" in the game. From one hand I tend to agree, however if we would reduce the number of available planes per platform significantly it could result in a more careful approach to this. Combine this with the pilot concept above (including skill) and you can create a fine balance that can keep this type of "weapon" in it's place.

Well If you think about it in regards to what we were discussing above, where maybe a incentive to return planes to land would be the experienced/inexperienced pilots, I'd imagine that would stop Kamakize to. Sure you can still do it, but how many would if you were losing your best pilots?


Edit: Never mind. I didn't finish reading the very end of your post. It sound like you were just pointing out the same thing I said in this post.

Lexxy
29th Jun 2007, 15:20
I'm glad that little idea provoked some thought.
I simply considered : why doesn't this happen realisticly - and the answer is simple : Human life.

Applied to a game, the "pilots" would give value to planes and therby make them more than an expendable unit. I like Shamrock's approach in veteran pilots - would work really well :)

-Lexxy.

Cpt.sharp
29th Jun 2007, 15:33
Yeah its a great idea to a well known problem. Nice idea shamrock

Wolfpack Apone
29th Jun 2007, 15:49
loving the idea of veteran pilots and rookies this is BRILLIANT give that man a cigar definately an incentive to land your birds.

Also love the idea of limited ammo on the ships (I think the AA guns should stay as they are). This would allow the fleet to withdraw to say the edge of the map and call in a supply convoy consisting of a fleet oiler, a cargo ships being escorted by a few destroyers what a great idea.

im not too keen on the sugestion about individualy controlling and firing turrets this may work on the PC where the user has about 100 buttons on the keyboard to play around with but dont forget us 360 users only have 17 buttons so this may not be compatible with 360 control architecture.

More downloadable content for all too, for the PC users i guess its easy to D/L map packs from the internet but for us 360 uswrs we gotta pay for our downloads and although the Iowa mission pack was great I was a bit disapointed at payin £5 and only getting 1 new sinlge player and 1 new MP map

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
29th Jun 2007, 16:37
this plane could be cool as an late war kamikaze weapon ,maybe 5 peaces in an installation ?!


THE OHKAhttp://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/files/MXY7.jpg

Dogmeatz
29th Jun 2007, 17:28
Nice Buzz Bomb Akagi

An idea...

Another form of Damage.. crew damage :eek:

Certain hits can wound and kill your crew, Maybe your little 3 repair men turn yellow(wounded) then red(Critical) as the are damaged an killed off. RED men cant be reassigned from general quarters an work at 25% rate, while yellow men can be moved but work/repair at a slower rate.

Just so real beat up ships cant repair at the same rate as fresh ships since most of there crew would be a little unwell at the point where half the superstructure is a smoldering heap.. :whistle:

Lexxy
29th Jun 2007, 17:32
I think as long as it was nice and simple, crew damage might be quite cool :)

I wouldn't want to be too overwhelmed with micro management, though, you see.

-Lexxy.

Sith Darthfoxx
29th Jun 2007, 19:04
WRT Ammo for Ships. We mentioned about the use of the 5in guns on
CVs so we wouldn't end up with draws when the planes ran out. Imagine the possibility for Draws with ships running out of Ammo. In the Great Navel Battles games you had ammo for all the ships guns, once you ran out you had to disengage/avoid engagements and make a run for the nearest port to rearm.

You know the biggest thing with returning planes is it takes so long for them to land. I think a simple solution like a landing radius around an Airfield or CV locks them in and allows you to launch a fresh squad would go a long ways towards incentive to land. Having an extra air wing (4 instead of 3) would help too. Still when you've got a ship just about to reach firing range on your CVs your going to splash everything anyways for a quicker attack plane turnover.

WRT Kami planes; simply have planes do no damage when they crash into a ship unless it's a designated Squad of Kami Zeros(new plane unit). Still a solution for landing planes is a tough one, The Veterancy idea (#of completed missions) has alot of merit.

Scipio65
29th Jun 2007, 20:03
I'm not sure if I like the complexity in the idea of pilots gaining experience or not. But I wouldn't be against it either, as I think it would force changes to some of our strategies. And that is usually a good thing. I think we would definitely see a whole lot more effort by the defending units to shoot down those planes and not just ignore them as soon as they have dropped armaments. In the experienced players' matches we would hardly see any planes at all making it home. This would become a primary strategic objective early in matches for good players/teams.

But if you are gonna do this, then you have to give me control over those land based AA guns. :D

It3llig3nc3
29th Jun 2007, 20:28
The more I think about this plane thing the more I realize that if it is done cleverly the realism and "punch" of the game could improve a lot.

We have a lot of components together to keep the action/strategy element, avoid extreme micro-management, keep the planes and make 1 plane more precious, valuable AND at the same time stronger than today.

for me the elements:
1. Put the pilot and their experience level in place so when the planes are flying on AI their performance is much closely related to how the player itself "behaves" in the game and what decisions it makes
2. Improve the squad management, make sure planes are returned, land so their force is fully utilized - if we want to increase pace make landing/take-off faster indeed :)
3. Have limited ammo even for plane's guns so dogfight is more critical. also make AA guns at least periodically "off" either by "gun overheat" or "cartridge replacement" or even say some of the repair crew can be assigned to AA guns ammo refill - so player has to trade between AA efficiency or flood fight...?
4. Improved DAMAGE Model: start with making DAMAGE of bombs more realistic. This is key. If you limit the number of planes / enable kamikaze mode / etc. you got to make sure it does not take 4x4 planes to sink a BB - have a ship damage model more sensitive to "weak points" Remember! The Bismarck got crippled by ONE! lucky torp hit that disabled it's steering capability!
Planes are quite "disposable" in the current game as loosing a few does not make a lot of difference unless the battle lasts very long.

Shamrock
30th Jun 2007, 07:17
I'm not sure if I like the complexity in the idea of pilots gaining experience or not. But I wouldn't be against it either, as I think it would force changes to some of our strategies. And that is usually a good thing. I think we would definitely see a whole lot more effort by the defending units to shoot down those planes and not just ignore them as soon as they have dropped armaments. In the experienced players' matches we would hardly see any planes at all making it home. This would become a primary strategic objective early in matches for good players/teams.

But if you are gonna do this, then you have to give me control over those land based AA guns. :D



Just wanted to point out that what I was talking about wouldn't involve Pilots gaining experience. What I meant was more along the lines of you have 40 planes and 20 experienced pilots (these pilots could be identical to the current pilots in BSM). When you lose your first 20 planes of any plane type (Zero, Dive Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, etc) your remaining planes would be launched with inexperienced or "rookie pilots" who have some type of ratings penalty against them (ie. Slower?, Less Maneuverable?, Worse AI?, etc) not sure what exactly the rating hit is, but it makes these pilots worse than experienced pilots.

So I wasn't suggesting that as you fly, pilots gain more experience or get better etc. That may very will get to complicated for some people to keep track of or unbalance the game. I simply mean that you have just your regular old normal pilots (which I'm calling experienced) with your first 20 planes and then if you lose them all your last 20 planes (of any given plane type) launch with rookies who have some sort of penalty that makes them not fly as good as normal pilots.

Dremora Warlord
30th Jun 2007, 15:03
Just wanted to point out that what I was talking about wouldn't involve Pilots gaining experience. What I meant was more along the lines of you have 40 planes and 20 experienced pilots (these pilots could be identical to the current pilots in BSM). When you lose your first 20 planes of any plane type (Zero, Dive Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, etc) your remaining planes would be launched with inexperienced or "rookie pilots" who have some type of ratings penalty against them (ie. Slower?, Less Maneuverable?, Worse AI?, etc) not sure what exactly the rating hit is, but it makes these pilots worse than experienced pilots.

So I wasn't suggesting that as you fly, pilots gain more experience or get better etc. That may very will get to complicated for some people to keep track of or unbalance the game. I simply mean that you have just your regular old normal pilots (which I'm calling experienced) with your first 20 planes and then if you lose them all your last 20 planes (of any given plane type) launch with rookies who have some sort of penalty that makes them not fly as good as normal pilots.

Actually, I think that the "Pilot gain experience" could be added to the idea of only a limited nummber of pilots. Imagine this, you get twenty experienced pilots, and twenty rookie pilots. Once all of your veteran pilots die, the rookies come out. How would it play out if lets say, a rookie dive bombs, or torpedeos a ship, and returns to base? Or a rookie fighter pilot shoots down five planes? (The amount for him to be an ace.)

That pilot would gain experience. I think that that could work very well, and you really wouldn't have to keep track of anything. If the pilot landed, one pilot would show up on a gauge that showed the amount of your pilots.

Dogmeatz
30th Jun 2007, 15:21
I reckon heaps of these Realism effects would be great as options, so some can play with em off for a more arcade fast game, while us old fogies who dont mind the more complex and slower game etc could turn em on.

Best off both worlds and keep every happy hehe

chip5541
2nd Jul 2007, 09:20
Here is a totally off the wall sugestion.

Single player split screen like Team Yankee :D

Dremora Warlord
5th Jul 2007, 01:16
System link. I forgot about that one. This game needs system link, and splitsreen. I would love to have had play with friends at times, but there was no internet connection, so we couldn't.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
23rd Jul 2007, 14:58
im sry but i forgot 1 thing
i wanna see a meeting point for planes, that means..... the airfield or CVs start in auto mode planes and all new planes move automaticly to the "meetingpoint" i set on card before
E5 for example!
thx AKAGI

Shamrock
29th Jul 2007, 05:54
im sry but i forgot 1 thing
i wanna see a meeting point for planes, that means..... the airfield or CVs start in auto mode planes and all new planes move automaticly to the "meetingpoint" i set on card before
E5 for example!
thx AKAGI

I think what he is trying to say is he want's to be able to set a rally point for all planes from that carrier. Which I think is a great idea because what we have to do now is launch 3 squads of planes and wait 2 minutes for all of them to get into the air before we move them out. It's a little bothersome especialy when your also controlling Ships. I'd would also very much like to be able to set a rally point, launch 3 squads of planes and know that as each squad launches they will automatically go to that spot.

This way I don't have to launch 3 squads. First squad is viewable on map, move them, wait for next squad to be viewable, move them. switch to my ship, open map again to see if 3rd squad is up, etc... I think you get the picture.