PDA

View Full Version : New Gamespot Interview - June 19th



LORD BLACKFIRE
22nd Jun 2008, 16:44
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/battlestationsmidway2/news.html?sid=6192769&mode=recent

Enjoy.

David603
22nd Jun 2008, 17:04
Sweet

100plus units, several types of kamikazes (probably an option to set normal planes to Kamikaze mode on launch), the Ohka can cripple ships with a single hit, and no more Henry Walker. The I-400 class sub is in, and the landing ships are controllable, so you can steer the ship near the beaches and then release the controllable landing craft. Land installations such as guns and radar can be controlled. You can fly in the Paratroopers and drop them manually, choosing where they will land. And the campaigns won't start out with only a couple of units, large scale battles from the start. My only worry is that the Americans have to rely on their more advanced fighters to stop the kamikazes, yet the Shinden looks like it will be a uber-plane.

Arrow
22nd Jun 2008, 18:55
I honestly am not sure as to the relevance of controlling the LCPs - given not only their small size and rather straightforward task, but the fact that they become pretty much immobile or useless once they've landed.

Oh great, they're changing the interface. Not sure if this is gonna be a good thing or not...

Again with the rockets. I don't really approve of them still, but hopefully they won't be like the rockets in my video demonstration previously.

And I still don't like the idea of seaplanes. They're still kind of useless IMO.

David603
22nd Jun 2008, 21:12
I'm glad the landing craft are controllable, it was really annoying on the Tulagi mission when the AI LSTs charged into the guns of the Japanese cruiser because I hadn't got round to sinking it.

The interface could do with an overhaul but I'm not sure it needs replacing entirely. I hope the HUD has been completely reworked though.

So long as the rockets are kept realistic they should be fine. That is, they are slow, have eratic flight paths and are like bombs in that you have to land to reload.

Seaplanes could be useful, since they are putting more weight on the strategy part of the game, so they would be good for recon. An I-400 with its 3 seaplanes would be a sub hunter par excellence, and if you can't see over islands with a new radar system then you would need a plane for recon. I would take off the seaplane's sonar though, so a BB can't go hunting subs and a cruiser would have trouble doing so.

Arrow
22nd Jun 2008, 21:53
Seaplanes could be useful, since they are putting more weight on the strategy part of the game, so they would be good for recon. An I-400 with its 3 seaplanes would be a sub hunter par excellence, and if you can't see over islands with a new radar system then you would need a plane for recon. I would take off the seaplane's sonar though, so a BB can't go hunting subs and a cruiser would have trouble doing so.

What's the point in a sub-hunting sub when you have DDs that can do that already? There are practically no maps out there that have no DDs.

Maybe you'd need a seaplane for recon, but look at the number of BBs and CAs that DO carry them. Do all of those ships need a recon plane attached? BSM proved that you only need one, at most two, recon planes. Now you're suggesting ONE unit produce not two but THREE recon planes? Seems kind of overkill.

And if the battles are as large as they currently are, seaplanes will just get in the way in smaller matches. In a Sibuyan 1v1, I have to get all my ships moving, both airfields launching Gekkos, the shipyard producing Type As, move said Type As to a battle area, set up repairs, AND set torpedo AI for each and every ship under my command. Having most of said ships launch recon planes and getting them recon-ing just seems unimportant compared to all the other things. Even then, the Gekkos are already scouting the enemy position.

To top it all off, seaplanes are completely and utterly useless if one side has a SINGLE CV or airfield. Daunts or Cats can do the exact same thing recon planes do, and more.

The only thing they HAVE going for them is their sonar. Otherwise you're better off just using cats or daunts.

Even then, you'd have one heck of a time getting players to move their seaplanes to a position on the map. As mentioned before, it's hard enough getting everyone to turn the right way on Steel Monsters; getting them to put their seaplanes in the right spots is just going to be impossible.

David603
22nd Jun 2008, 23:24
I agree that an airfield or carrier would make seaplanes irrelevant, by why have the I-400 otherwise? Its just a large, slow sub with a good AA armament if it lacks its planes. The Seiran floatplanes aren't recon planes as such, they are an attack plane. So maybe there will be a mission to attack the Panama Cannal, as the I-400 class was intended for, or a mission or map that has no airfields or carriers. Personally, I want the seaplanes because they were there in real life, and in a map that lacked other aircraft they could be usefull. Using your arguement, you could say that seaplanes are totally irelevant and should not be included at all, whether or not ships can launch them. And your right that on a map like Sibuyan they would get in the way, but hopefully there will be some larger, more tactical maps in BSP.

battleshipman
22nd Jun 2008, 23:40
What's the point in a sub-hunting sub when you have DDs that can do that already? There are practically no maps out there that have no DDs.

Maybe you'd need a seaplane for recon, but look at the number of BBs and CAs that DO carry them. Do all of those ships need a recon plane attached? BSM proved that you only need one, at most two, recon planes. Now you're suggesting ONE unit produce not two but THREE recon planes? Seems kind of overkill.

And if the battles are as large as they currently are, seaplanes will just get in the way in smaller matches. In a Sibuyan 1v1, I have to get all my ships moving, both airfields launching Gekkos, the shipyard producing Type As, move said Type As to a battle area, set up repairs, AND set torpedo AI for each and every ship under my command. Having most of said ships launch recon planes and getting them recon-ing just seems unimportant compared to all the other things. Even then, the Gekkos are already scouting the enemy position.

To top it all off, seaplanes are completely and utterly useless if one side has a SINGLE CV or airfield. Daunts or Cats can do the exact same thing recon planes do, and more.

The only thing they HAVE going for them is their sonar. Otherwise you're better off just using cats or daunts.

Even then, you'd have one heck of a time getting players to move their seaplanes to a position on the map. As mentioned before, it's hard enough getting everyone to turn the right way on Steel Monsters; getting them to put their seaplanes in the right spots is just going to be impossible.

Did a seaplane beat you when you where a kid? really, they couldn't sneak around and maybe find the cv on a larger map? Or they could simply fly above your ship and increase you visuall range, thus letting you see incoming units from further out. Also just because they would burden you doesn't make them a bad idea.


As mentioned before, it's hard enough getting everyone to turn the right way on Steel Monsters; getting them to put their seaplanes in the right spots is just going to be impossible

Well by that logic they need to take ALL the units out of the game and just give everyone pretty pictures to look at. How many maps have you played where everyone did everything that was right?

Arrow
23rd Jun 2008, 00:12
Did a seaplane beat you when you where a kid? really, they couldn't sneak around and maybe find the cv on a larger map? Or they could simply fly above your ship and increase you visuall range, thus letting you see incoming units from further out. Also just because they would burden you doesn't make them a bad idea.



Well by that logic they need to take ALL the units out of the game and just give everyone pretty pictures to look at. How many maps have you played where everyone did everything that was right?

It's not that they burden you - it's that the burden-to-effort ratio is not enough to warrant the inclusion of seaplanes on practically every cruiser and battleship listed. Stuff like setting repairs - oh yeah, that's a burden too - but unlike seaplanes, it pays off.

And no, you've clearly misinterpreted my argument. The thing is that it becomes just another thing that can go wrong - again, the burden-to-effort ratio just isn't enough. It's bad enough as it is - by adding seaplanes, you're just making an already bad situation worse.


I agree that an airfield or carrier would make seaplanes irrelevant, by why have the I-400 otherwise? Its just a large, slow sub with a good AA armament if it lacks its planes. The Seiran floatplanes aren't recon planes as such, they are an attack plane. So maybe there will be a mission to attack the Panama Cannal, as the I-400 class was intended for, or a mission or map that has no airfields or carriers. Personally, I want the seaplanes because they were there in real life, and in a map that lacked other aircraft they could be usefull. Using your arguement, you could say that seaplanes are totally irelevant and should not be included at all, whether or not ships can launch them. And your right that on a map like Sibuyan they would get in the way, but hopefully there will be some larger, more tactical maps in BSP.

"Because it was there in real life" is a pretty poor excuse to put something in. There's a reason why BSM took out things like G-forces and trigonometry. Using that argument, you can throw in anything "because it was there in real life".

And seaplanes can play a purpose - Operation MI suggests that. My point is that if you have every ship bigger than a CA launching recon planes, then you get a map completely flooded with recon planes. This is not only stupid, but it also negates the whole idea of hiding behind an island. Not only that, but it would even negate the shroud entirely - you're best off just having the whole map revealed from the start.

Recon planes can be useful, but there has to be a limit as to how many can be deployed at once. Endgame at Midway suggests that having more than two recon planes is just silly. Even if each ship were allowed one recon plane, you'd get three or four depending on the map.

Colosseum
23rd Jun 2008, 00:42
Your opinions aren't going to change the outcome of the game. Stop whining.

Arrow
23rd Jun 2008, 00:45
I don't care what you think.

Colosseum
23rd Jun 2008, 02:09
Well jesus, it's like every time something new about BSP is revealed you're like "OH MY GOSH GUYS THIS SUCKS WHY ARE THEY CHANGING IT".

Stop being so critical of everything all the time.

YUKIMURA300
23rd Jun 2008, 03:37
The I-400, I-401 & I-402 carried ATTACK PLANES. Not scouts. They were built to carry planes that could attack the Panama Canal.

Is that really that difficult to understand? It's a gimmick weapon. It will be FUN. That's the point of it in the new game.

David603
23rd Jun 2008, 11:38
Lets have a look at just how many seaplanes you would find on the average map. Using Steel Monsters as an example, the Japanese have 2 Kongos, 2 Fusos, and one each of the Takao, Mogami, Tone and Kuma class cruisers. The Kongos and Fusos have no planes, Takao has 3, Mogami has 3, Tone has 6 and Kuma has 1. The Americans have 2 KGVs, 2 Fusos and one each of the Cleveland, York, Altlanta and Northampton classes of cruiser. KGV has 4, New York has none, Cleveland has 4, York has 1, Atlanta has 3 and Northampton has 2. So thats 18 American seaplanes and 13 Japanese seaplanes on Steel Monsters.

Colosseum
23rd Jun 2008, 12:55
In reality, New York (at least the USS Texas) carried an OS2U Kingfisher on the amidships turret, and I believe Fuso carried a Dave floatplane on its second amidships turret.

Seaplanes would be awesome, the idea is really cool. :thumbsup:

YUKIMURA300
23rd Jun 2008, 13:15
All Japanese Battleships, Heavy & Light Cruisers (bar Ōyodo, the Tenryū class and Yūbari) carried Floatplanes. Mogami was converted to have a flight deck with more of them (like the Ise class were).

David603
23rd Jun 2008, 13:36
So the Kongos have 3 seaplanes, Fusos have 1 and New Yorks have 1. That makes 21 Japanese and 20 American seaplanes on Steel Monsters alone.

Arrow
23rd Jun 2008, 19:46
I dunno about you, but I think that's a lot of damn seaplanes. Yes, you need seaplanes, but do you really need that many? Especially on a map that's supposed to be focused on ships?

David603
23rd Jun 2008, 20:11
Maybe it could be limited like the carriers, so only one or two seaplanes per ship being airborne at any one time.

YUKIMURA300
23rd Jun 2008, 20:22
How do you know Steel Monsters is even going to be in the new game? Maybe the map will be bigger?

David603
23rd Jun 2008, 20:37
Just using Steel Monsters as an example to find out how many seaplanes would be on a map. But if Steel Monsters is in BSP, I hope the starting position are moved back, because I would like to be able to get the fleet in formation before the battle.

Arrow
23rd Jun 2008, 20:50
Well, when you think about it, there should be a map like Steel Monsters. Firstly, it's a popular map. Secondly, and most importantly, it's a map that has ships only. Some specialist players (like me for flying) like maps with all of one type of unit. Whether or not Steel Monsters itself will be in BSP, is up for debate.

But my point stands. You can't have that many planes in the air at once, at least assuming the system involving airplanes hasn't changed. It gets even more complicated when you give them bombs - if you make them light bombs, they don't become worth it. If you make them heavy bombs, they make dive bombers look stupid.

So should there be seaplanes? Definitely. How many, and how limiting their abilities are, is my question. The only map that comes to mind that lacks a CV or an airfield is Steel Monsters, and you said yourself that seaplanes border on useless if a CV is involved.

Colosseum
23rd Jun 2008, 22:00
I'm sure if seaplanes were added, Eidos would change some gameplay mechanics around to make them useful. The problem is that you guys are thinking of this in terms of Battlestations: Midway, when Eidos has already stated that BSP is going to be a lot bigger and a lot better with a lot of changes.

Arrow
23rd Jun 2008, 22:38
I'm sure if seaplanes were added, Eidos would change some gameplay mechanics around to make them useful. The problem is that you guys are thinking of this in terms of Battlestations: Midway, when Eidos has already stated that BSP is going to be a lot bigger and a lot better with a lot of changes.

That brings in the other problem of things being built on each other. Change one thing, then you'll need to change another thing to balance that, and the chain reaction that results could (and I admit, it only could - not that it will) change core gameplay, and thus turn BSP into something demented.

And Colosseum, really - it's okay to say that it's just me "thinking of this in terms of Battlestations: Midway".