PDA

View Full Version : 12. How do you feel about the balance of strategy and action in BSM?



chip5541
5th Jul 2007, 10:00
Which one do you feel should be developed further?

mortalstakes
5th Jul 2007, 10:48
the hands on action is almost perfect

I'd like to see the strategy side developed more, but not at the expense of the action

Shamrock
5th Jul 2007, 13:57
360 version


Definately the startegy needs to be developed more. Currently the way BSM is setup their really is only 1 sound strategy for each map. People figure out that strategy and then thats it. Thats how the map is played.

I think everything would be so much different and better if we had a better Fog of War and we could choose starting locations. I could only imagine how fun it would be to go hunting for your enemy only to turn a corner to find a big ass BS sitting behind a island that you didn't expect to see.

Right now we know where every unit starts and we know where it's coming from. The radar on the map is ridiculous. Their should be no radar as it is now. We should only see on the map what a human being would see from a ship/plane (line of sight)

What I mean by that is if a ship is out of the line of sight (IE hiding behind a island) then it should not show up on the map until it can literally be spotted by the human eye. Developers should give the host the option to play with Fog settings so the host can determine how far out their ships can spot each other.

For instance with it set to no Fog enemy ships will appear on the map with in 4 miles only with a direct line of sight (IE the ship can see the other ship on the screen). With Fog tunred to Heavy enemey will only appear on the map at 1.5 miles away with a direct line of sight. etc, etc.

Wolfpack Apone
5th Jul 2007, 14:58
the hands on action is almost perfect

I'd like to see the strategy side developed more, but not at the expense of the action


think this one nails it on the head, short but simple

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
5th Jul 2007, 15:03
i think the balance is very good!

I'd like to see the strategy side developed more
it is an bit more difficult for all random player in this game to find the right strats whit other random in this game!
but for us as clan its perfect, TS is an important part of it!

Dremora Warlord
5th Jul 2007, 16:04
I think that mortal got it right. I think that part of it though is toning down radar, and putting in the Fog of War element. But yeah, it is pretty well balanced.

Cpt.sharp
5th Jul 2007, 17:17
as the game is atm, strategy isnt that great of a concern. Not because the game is that easy, but because it is imposible do do anything with out the other team knowing what you are going to do. So, as long as the radar and the fog of war is tweeked. (Like said before.) Strategy will come into play.

I do like the idea to have it an option for the host to set what type of fog of war you want in your game.

It3llig3nc3
5th Jul 2007, 20:18
I'm glad this question came up. The fact that BS:M blends quite well these two elements (strat/action) is what makes it very unique in my mind and separates it from many other titles.

The way I look at it the current version has a nice blend but for me it is overly simplistic. I raised this point many time before - the developers would need to make a choice in the future as how they approach this game:
A) is it "primarily" an action shooter with some strategic elements (i.e.: the strategy is there to create dynamic scenarios for shooting)
or
B) it is an RTS game where as an "extra" I can take control of individual units if I wish to do so.

In my mind BS:M currently is more leaning toward option A. It will be a judgment call to continue on that path or start swinging around.

Personally myself would like to see the game moving towards RTS much more. Since the action side is pretty well done (apart from the minor fixes as individual gun control, etc..) the RTS side is where the focus should go. I'm envisioning almost a "Company of Heroes" type game where taking command of individual (or group of ) units is more aimed to create "Breakthrough" situations and not the pure human action shooting skill determines the overall result of the battle. All my suggested elements are pointing towards this idea:
-->More freedom and complexity in unit management (grouping, formations, orders)
-->More freedom as with what kind of units I want to fight at the beginning
-->More "clever" AI that is a real strategic opponent for me in SP mode
-->Our ideas around making the airplane a more valuable asset with pilot skills added is also a typical RTS feature.
-->We could think of an "own unit AI skill improvement" not only for planes as well. Ships for example that the player controls frequently within one battle could also gain skill by being successful so even when the player is not commanding it directly the AI plays stronger with it...
-->Many people commented on the "Fog of War" and other concepts to have only a realistically limited view/understaing of the map and the enemy units vs the current "I almost all the time see everything" mood.

There are some RTS elements I would never suggest to incorporate: such as resource gathering and management for example. Also probably we would need to accept the relatively low number of units on the battlefield (vs. hundreds in a true RTS)

One last point that loosely belongs here: Mission objectives.
In a real RTS game mission objectives are typically more complicated than destroying a few big units (unlike in action shooters --> "Boss fight at the end of the level). RTS is strong in building on more than one strategic objective especially in SP mode. (defend convoy, patrol, conquer and hold certain points for a given time, etc..)
This is something BS:M2 might want to consider as well

Scipio65
6th Jul 2007, 14:35
I feel like this game gave a decent account of both. Good action players and/or good strategy players can excel at either enough to balance out their efforts. The only areas needing improvement on the action side are with just a couple of specific units.

If I was prioritizing the development work on changing the next BS:M it would go like this.

Add to the strategy options (variable scenario map/units/placement options)
Add to the strategy options (host settings for intel, weather, etc...)
Add to the action options (fix the subs to be less vulnerable, with limits)
Add to the action options (allow multiple players on bigger units like BBs and CAs)
Add to the action options (control of land based AA and artillery)
Add to the realism (sound effects, visuals)
Add to the historical accuracy (ship names, appearance)

Sith Darthfoxx
7th Jul 2007, 23:46
the hands on action is almost perfect

I'd like to see the strategy side developed more, but not at the expense of the action

I agree word for word.

Sith Darthfoxx
7th Jul 2007, 23:48
I feel like this game gave a decent account of both. Good action players and/or good strategy players can excel at either enough to balance out their efforts. The only areas needing improvement on the action side are with just a couple of specific units.

If I was prioritizing the development work on changing the next BS:M it would go like this.

Add to the strategy options (variable scenario map/units/placement options)
Add to the strategy options (host settings for intel, weather, etc...)
Add to the action options (fix the subs to be less vulnerable, with limits)
Add to the action options (allow multiple players on bigger units like BBs and CAs)
Add to the action options (control of land based AA and artillery)
Add to the realism (sound effects, visuals)
Add to the historical accuracy (ship names, appearance)
and this word for word.

chip5541
8th Jul 2007, 09:13
I thought it was perfectly balanced although as a PC player I would like to have seen a little more depth in the strategy and action portion.

chip5541
9th Jul 2007, 09:13
How about an "advance" button for more detailed control of ship duties and manouvers in either the strategy or action screen?

Dogmeatz
18th Jul 2007, 09:49
How about an "advance" button for more detailed control of ship duties and manouvers in either the strategy or action screen?

yes i like that a lot, otional so u dont need to use it but for any budding admirals there a few more tactical issues.

The mix was pretty good for bsm for example its one game where team work matters more than many rts an for me thats a good thang.