PDA

View Full Version : New Suggetions For Pacific



MrPink45
23rd Jul 2008, 05:02
First off, I for one think that an online multiplayer demo should be released for Pacific as was the demo for midway...

but to the point, suggetions for the actual game, battlestations: Pacific...


A difficult ranking system built into all games outside of private matches

More realistic damage

damage controll on airfields, shipyards, ect. (but when used, all workers are detered from the launching sequence of units)

A mission for dropping one or both of the nuclear weapons used in WW2

clear vision in underwater units at up to depth level 2 or 3 on certain maps

bombs can be shot during their descent

A game mode for capturing key strategic locations like airfields, killing those would result in a loss, (friendly fire one those locations would have to be off of course)

As for people complaining about ditching planes, tie that into the ranking system as a form of punishment possibly

invasion multiplayer maps, like okinawa, iojima, ect. where defenders mostly use land units

Bigger Maps

Fuel limits on planes

depth charge explosions visible to surface viewers

first person viewing modes on units

various water types like choppy, calm, and stormy

a jetstream in parts of upper altitude areas

AAFlak shouldn't reach as high as planes can fly

Weather conditons like foggy and storms

More maps online

longer time to launch units

Kamikaze has more damage

kamikaze with explosives (torpedos/bombs) attatched to planes resulting in combined damage

Valnurable spots on units (fuel tanks on planes, ect.)

beachable ships

Limits on airplane machine-gun ammo (idk, it could work)

clans

night maps

maps capable of holding different sizes of teams (up to 8 per side would be sweet)

visible damage from colliding units (ships)

surrender option

battleshipman
23rd Jul 2008, 08:01
More realistic damage

I'm with you on that one.


damage controll on airfields, shipyards, ect. (but when used, all workers are detered from the launching sequence of units)


Why?


A mission for dropping one or both of the nuclear weapons used in WW2

Why would anyone want to fly a mission where they know they are going to get to the target un-opposed?


As for people complaining about ditching planes, tie that into the ranking system as a form of punishment possibly

Bad idea. I've been on some maps where you HAD to ditch the planes because someone decided the CA could take on the entire japanese fleet on its own. I think the planes should land themselves once told to do so, then the player could launch another wave.


invasion multiplayer maps, like okinawa, iojima, ect. where defenders mostly use land units

Why do people have such a love affair with land units? two words NAVAL GAME


a jetstream in parts of upper altitude areas

Waste of resources for the game, how often are the planes going to be up that high?


AAFlak shouldn't reach as high as planes can fly


So you don't want AA guns in BS:P????????????????????? WTH?



longer time to launch units

Some of these units (carrier planes, pt boats) take to long to launch to me as it is. You want units to take longer??


surrender option

BS:M has that already.

Now I don't mean to be ignorant, but it seems like everyone is signing up for these forums and coming on here and spouting the same ideas that have already been posted 100,000 times. Most of the ideas are old ideas. People really should READ through the forums before just making a "I know how it should be" post. I'm not trying to be harsh but I can't take a new Ideas thread every F**** ng week.

crazyhorse128
23rd Jul 2008, 08:47
Enough with the land units already! Like battleshipman said this is a naval game, go spend your money on someting like Battlefield if you want a big mxture of everything.

Battleshipman what you said about planes be on a landing order enabling you to lauch replacements is not the best route, in my opinion it should simply be the case where you can launch more than just 9 or 12 planes.

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 10:58
You shouldn't be able to launch your entire wing right at the start, though. In any case, one situation where a slot should definitely be freed is when the player aircraft has landed and the AI planes are following it.

In my opinion, machine guns shouldn't be able to strike B-17s. For some reason I just don't see a WW2 machine gun striking that high. Maybe I'm mistaken. The way I see it, MGs are best used against low-flying targets, and flak guns at higher ones. This isn't to say that MGs can ONLY strike low and flak guns can ONLY strike high - it's just what they're best at.

MrPink45
23rd Jul 2008, 15:48
U have to realize that some of the things do make sense and tie into each other in my last post...

for instance the tie between my AAFlak and jetstream suggestion, back in the actual war, planes, even ones that werent bombers, could fly above AAFlak's ranges. I think that for the sake of realism it should be considered, but for bombers on stationary targets, i could see that being a bit of an annoyer. So in response to that a jeststream placed a little below maximum (maximum being out of range) altitude for planes could fix the problem. Bombs wouldn't travel straight enough to hit their target. (it doesn't matter if planes would be effected flying through it, just as long as bombs would)

And you ask "Why" on damage controll on shipyards/Airfields, well this is still considered a strategy game afterall, and this is just basically alowing a player to fix his airfield/shipyard at any time (prefferably at a slow pace) but leave him and his teamates at a complete disadvantage if timed wrong...

And dropping the nuclear weapons didn't go un-opposed, as long as the mission included flying back from dropping the bomb... but i can see ur point.

As for my idea, i'm not sure how your thought could be any more correct. if u can't ditch planes because they fly themselves back to base automatically, then u can't ditch them either. unless ur saying that they are still controllable, which would only really work for bombers which would be the original BSM.

Land units are gonna be in the game, so i think it'll open up a whole new window for an already great game, In my opinion this is at it's heart a truely original series, in which it is a one-of-a-kind crossover between strategy/3PS. I think the naval part in the last one was just the theme that they decided on afterwards (a great one at that). And land units are just expanding on-top of that theme/idea.

And i'm sorry for ur eyes having to bleed because u saw the same damn posts again, my bad. But about 20/29 where mostly original thoughts so somethins gotta be said there (u were right i didn't read them). Also i don't mean to be arrogant and so defensive of my ideas, but i wanted u and others to understand them better from my point of view on how they work.

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 17:14
U have to realize that some of the things do make sense and tie into each other in my last post...

for instance the tie between my AAFlak and jetstream suggestion, back in the actual war, planes, even ones that werent bombers, could fly above AAFlak's ranges. I think that for the sake of realism it should be considered, but for bombers on stationary targets, i could see that being a bit of an annoyer. So in response to that a jeststream placed a little below maximum (maximum being out of range) altitude for planes could fix the problem. Bombs wouldn't travel straight enough to hit their target. (it doesn't matter if planes would be effected flying through it, just as long as bombs would)

And you ask "Why" on damage controll on shipyards/Airfields, well this is still considered a strategy game afterall, and this is just basically alowing a player to fix his airfield/shipyard at any time (prefferably at a slow pace) but leave him and his teamates at a complete disadvantage if timed wrong...

And dropping the nuclear weapons didn't go un-opposed, as long as the mission included flying back from dropping the bomb... but i can see ur point.

As for my idea, i'm not sure how your thought could be any more correct. if u can't ditch planes because they fly themselves back to base automatically, then u can't ditch them either. unless ur saying that they are still controllable, which would only really work for bombers which would be the original BSM.

Land units are gonna be in the game, so i think it'll open up a whole new window for an already great game, In my opinion this is at it's heart a truely original series, in which it is a one-of-a-kind crossover between strategy/3PS. I think the naval part in the last one was just the theme that they decided on afterwards (a great one at that). And land units are just expanding on-top of that theme/idea.

And i'm sorry for ur eyes having to bleed because u saw the same damn posts again, my bad. But about 20/29 where mostly original thoughts so somethins gotta be said there (u were right i didn't read them). Also i don't mean to be arrogant and so defensive of my ideas, but i wanted u and others to understand them better from my point of view on how they work.

Keep in mind this is a video game. Temporary invulnerability from AA fire is just plain retarded. I can imagine the chaos that would ensue when you'd fly a torpedo bomber all the way across a map to start torpedo bombing the @#$% out of the enemy CV.

Land units are just plain stupid. The name "Battlestations" suggests ships. Therefore, the focus is on ships. If you want land units, play Battlefield 1942.

There is no real need for damage control on shipyards or airfields, simply because they only have one real component. Every other little building and docked plane and tower is a "doodad" (to borrow a term from Starcraft) and no one cares about them. The destruction of the doodads when the airfield goes kaput is good enough.

You also spelt the following words wrong:
-AAFlak (saying "AA" and "Flak" is almost redundant)
-Werent (apostrophe)
-Jestream ("Do not jest about the jestream!")
-Controll (only one L in "control")
-Afterall (is two words)
-"alowing" (there are two Ls in "allowing")
-"prefferably" (preferably)
-"teamates" (two Ms in "teammates")
-Unopposed is one word, not hyphenated
-"I'm" should be capitalized
-I have no idea what the hell "ur" is.
-What the hell is "somethins"?

crazyhorse128
23rd Jul 2008, 18:24
erm Arrow, AA and Flak are almost redundant :)

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 20:02
I was referring to saying "AA" and "flak" is redundant. I figured that would be inferred, but since it's apparently not, I edited the above.

MrPink45
23rd Jul 2008, 20:27
Keep in mind this is a video game. Temporary invulnerability from AA fire is just plain retarded. I can imagine the chaos that would ensue when you'd fly a torpedo bomber all the way across a map to start torpedo bombing the @#$% out of the enemy CV.

Land units are just plain stupid. The name "Battlestations" suggests ships. Therefore, the focus is on ships. If you want land units, play Battlefield 1942.

There is no real need for damage control on shipyards or airfields, simply because they only have one real component. Every other little building and docked plane and tower is a "doodad" (to borrow a term from Starcraft) and no one cares about them. The destruction of the doodads when the airfield goes kaput is good enough.

You also spelt the following words wrong:
-AAFlak (AA and Flak is almost redundant)
-Werent (apostrophe)
-Jestream ("Do not jest about the jestream!")
-Controll (only one L in "control")
-Afterall (is two words)
-"alowing" (there are two Ls in "allowing")
-"prefferably" (preferably)
-"teamates" (two Ms in "teammates")
-Unopposed is one word, not hyphenated
-"I'm" should be capitalized
-I have no idea what the hell "ur" is.
-What the hell is "somethins"?

Okay first of all, i think you need to relax on my spelling, just because i want to share a few of my ideas on a small forum doesn't mean that I must spend all of my time meticulously typing out every last word. I or anybody else isn't exactly going to benefit from completely correct spelling on this specific website. You obviously feel that because you always take your sweet consideration into your typing that you can talk down to me in some condescending manner in which you try to make me look like some sort of fool for using a few texting slang words like "ur".**** And by definiton i would think that you believe yourself to be an elitist. But to no avail your an elitist on a small videogame thread based website. I'd continue but i don't want to hurt your little valnurable conceited feelings.

On another note, I see you've continued to rant on aimlessly about how land units shouldn't be in a game titled "batttlestations". Well why do i say aimlessly, oh yeah, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PUT IN THE GAME! So instead of arguing with my suggestions on how to build off of that, go talk to someone acually working on "Battlestations: Pacific" instead.

"Temporary invulnerability from AA fire is just plain retarded." Your reasonability is just plain retarded. This is STRATEGY, i'm sure it's not too arduous to go knock down a couple of torpedo bombers, especially if they flew into your territory. (since thats what you suggested)

And when i said damage controll on shipyards/airfields, i didn't mean on their "doodads", i meant on the actual base from which you launch units and enemy units knock out to win the game. Keep trying, you'll get better at critiquing my ideas someday...:D

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 20:49
Unfortunately any further comments from me will have to be edited by Chip, so I'm not saying anything further.

Suffice to say, your ideas suck. Get over it.

crazyhorse128
23rd Jul 2008, 22:07
On another note, I see you've continued to rant on aimlessly about how land units shouldn't be in a game titled "batttlestations". Well why do i say aimlessly, oh yeah, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PUT IN THE GAME! So instead of arguing with my suggestions on how to build off of that, go talk to someone acually working on "Battlestations: Pacific" instead.

*By now crazyhorse is pulling his hair out in anger* :mad2: FOR THE LAST TIME, IF YOU WANT TO DO ISLAND CAPTURE IN DETAIL BUY A GAME SUCH AS BATTLEFIELD, BS:M/P IS A NAVAL GAME. WHILST YES IT WILL BE IN THE GAME DONT EXPECT A PRECISE TACTIAL GAME REGARDING LAND UNITS :mad2:

battleshipman
23rd Jul 2008, 22:13
First off I'd like to point out that my eyes didn't bleed. However the re-posting of the same (or similar) ideas over and over again makes my head hurt. :nut:



And when i said damage controll on shipyards/airfields, i didn't mean on their "doodads", i meant on the actual base from which you launch units and enemy units knock out to win the game.

Just make sure you set it to water on your airfield, we wouldn't want it to sink:lmao: . Seriously, other than adding fire damage and having damage control put the fire out, what else would it do?


On another note, I see you've continued to rant on aimlessly about how land units shouldn't be in a game titled "batttlestations". Well why do i say aimlessly, oh yeah, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PUT IN THE GAME!

To a hopefully limited extent.


"Temporary invulnerability from AA fire is just plain retarded." Your reasonability is just plain retarded. This is STRATEGY, i'm sure it's not too arduous to go knock down a couple of torpedo bombers, especially if they flew into your territory. (since thats what you suggested)


No this is the worst Idea you had. flying right over AA fire is NOT Strategy as you suggest. Plotting a course around it rather than through it(most people can't grasp that) is strategy. Your more or less asking for a free pass to get within range of the enemy before he can shoot your plane.


As for my idea, i'm not sure how your thought could be any more correct. if u can't ditch planes because they fly themselves back to base automatically, then u can't ditch them either. unless ur saying that they are still controllable, which would only really work for bombers which would be the original BSM.

My whole point was after you tell the planes to land, you lose control over them and they land on there own. Allowing the player to launch a new squad (up to 6 squads on the carrier setup we have in BS:M 3 landing 3 flying)

Some Guy
23rd Jul 2008, 22:18
Okay first of all, i think you need to relax on my spelling, just because i want to share a few of my ideas on a small forum doesn't mean that I must spend all of my time meticulously typing out every last word. I or anybody else isn't exactly going to benefit from completely correct spelling on this specific website. You obviously feel that because you always take your sweet consideration into your typing that you can talk down to me in some condescending manner in which you try to make me look like some sort of fool for using a few texting slang words like "ur".**** And by definiton i would think that you believe yourself to be an elitist. But to no avail your an elitist on a small videogame thread based website. I'd continue but i don't want to hurt your little valnurable conceited feelings.

On another note, I see you've continued to rant on aimlessly about how land units shouldn't be in a game titled "batttlestations". Well why do i say aimlessly, oh yeah, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PUT IN THE GAME! So instead of arguing with my suggestions on how to build off of that, go talk to someone acually working on "Battlestations: Pacific" instead.

"Temporary invulnerability from AA fire is just plain retarded." Your reasonability is just plain retarded. This is STRATEGY, i'm sure it's not too arduous to go knock down a couple of torpedo bombers, especially if they flew into your territory. (since thats what you suggested)

And when i said damage controll on shipyards/airfields, i didn't mean on their "doodads", i meant on the actual base from which you launch units and enemy units knock out to win the game. Keep trying, you'll get better at critiquing my ideas someday...:D



First of all you aren't even going to be able to control individual soldiers you just command their landing craft and protect them with naval and air support. I think you are like the only one here who probably wants land battles exactly like CoD4 battles

Arrow
23rd Jul 2008, 23:28
The only other thing I can imagine having a repair screen for would be fire and weapons. Land installations having a repair screen is just stupid.

I believe unlocking slots for aircraft when at LEAST the player aircraft has landed will suffice.

Sinking airfields ftw.

Battlestations land battles fail.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 00:49
First of all you aren't even going to be able to control individual soldiers you just command their landing craft and protect them with naval and air support. I think you are like the only one here who probably wants land battles exactly like CoD4 battles

Just for the record i don't want personal controll over infantry, just land installations like a fortress, don't make assumptions

Red October
24th Jul 2008, 00:58
You can already fly above flak in Midway. You just have to be at the very top.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 01:53
First off I'd like to point out that my eyes didn't bleed. However the re-posting of the same (or similar) ideas over and over again makes my head hurt. :nut:




Just make sure you set it to water on your airfield, we wouldn't want it to sink:lmao: . Seriously, other than adding fire damage and having damage control put the fire out, what else would it do?



To a hopefully limited extent.



No this is the worst Idea you had. flying right over AA fire is NOT Strategy as you suggest. Plotting a course around it rather than through it(most people can't grasp that) is strategy. Your more or less asking for a free pass to get within range of the enemy before he can shoot your plane.



My whole point was after you tell the planes to land, you lose control over them and they land on there own. Allowing the player to launch a new squad (up to 6 squads on the carrier setup we have in BS:M 3 landing 3 flying)

haha yeah we don't want our airfields sleepin with the fishes. But i was thinking just an overall damage controll, but i could understand not liking the idea...

but back to AA fire, well it isn't always about the most fun game (like unreal 3) realism should always be considered, and if done right can also be fun. But yeah it could turn out really crappy.:(

And i now understand your plane idea, which is a great thought on the whole problem...

Arrow
24th Jul 2008, 02:01
Battlestations is NOT meant to be uber realistic. There are a thousand flight simulators I could play instead - Il-2 Sturmovik, Microsoft Flight Simulator, even Warbirds to name a few. But I like the semi-realistic arcade-y feel of Midway, and that's what I'm hoping for Pacific. I don't want it to degenerate into using trigonometry and the distance between the gun directors to determine the distance between me and the enemy, and then practically guess how high to aim my weapons. I've had enough of that in math class.

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 04:52
Just trying to keep the peace.

Some of the ideas had been suggested and are in teh "While we still have a voice-What do YOU want in BSM2?" thread and have been discussed in depth.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 04:53
Battlestations is NOT meant to be uber realistic. There are a thousand flight simulators I could play instead - Il-2 Sturmovik, Microsoft Flight Simulator, even Warbirds to name a few. But I like the semi-realistic arcade-y feel of Midway, and that's what I'm hoping for Pacific. I don't want it to degenerate into using trigonometry and the distance between the gun directors to determine the distance between me and the enemy, and then practically guess how high to aim my weapons. I've had enough of that in math class.

Listen people who always shoot for complete realism are often escaping life themselves, and that is not what i'm doing at all, i'm just throwin a little of it into the mix like oregano in spagetti sauce. Otherwise i totally agree.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 04:54
You can already fly above flak in Midway. You just have to be at the very top.
well somebody beat me to the idea, so that solves it, let the ongoing argument end now...

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 04:56
Battlestations is NOT meant to be uber realistic.
There are enough of those types of games.


There are a thousand flight simulators I could play instead - Il-2 Sturmovik

Coming to teh 360 and PS3 as well.


But I like the semi-realistic arcade-y feel of Midway, and that's what I'm hoping for Pacific. I don't want it to degenerate into using trigonometry and the distance between the gun directors to determine the distance between me and the enemy, and then practically guess how high to aim my weapons. I've had enough of that in math class.

:thumbsup:

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 04:57
well somebody beat me to the idea, so that solves it, let the ongoing argument end now...


I prefer to think of it as a lively debate :D

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 04:57
Unfortunately any further comments from me will have to be edited by Chip, so I'm not saying anything further.

Suffice to say, your ideas suck. Get over it.

haha nice cover-up there...

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 05:01
haha nice cover-up there...

Here I come to save the day!!!!

http://www.gavinshearer.com/photos/weblog/2005_08_09_mightymouse.jpg

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 05:06
I don't know how people have said this too, but there should be an option for insignia's on your favorite unit(s).

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 05:10
I don't know how people have said this too, but there should be an option for insignia's on your favorite unit(s).

On the face it would be nice but it would kind of break the WWII setting with everyone having custom nose art.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 05:11
On the face it would be nice but it would kind of break the WWII setting with everyone having custom nose art.
yeah true, very true

crazyhorse128
24th Jul 2008, 07:59
On the face it would be nice but it would kind of break the WWII setting with everyone having custom nose art.

*cough cough* Modern Day :rasp:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1443/finishah6.jpg

Arrow
24th Jul 2008, 12:00
Customized nose art for planes would be interesting when one wanted to make the model look good, but for game purposes, I don't think many Zero pilots will stop in mid air and shout, "Hey, what cool nose art!". It could be something interesting to put in, and for the sake of making movies too. Along similar lines maybe they could code in all 10 digits into the USN ship's bow, so you could change that number to be whatever. Again, I don't think many people will actually pay attention to it, so it's a little minor thing that can be implemented...possibly in a patch or something, depending on how complicated such changes are to make.

crazyhorse128
24th Jul 2008, 14:02
Maybe even changing the camoflauge on ships and planes, just for a bit of personification :thumbsup:



For example having your B-17's green rather than silver

Arrow
24th Jul 2008, 15:42
You mean personalization. Personification is this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Mechamusume.jpg

That is a Sherman MBT, by the way.

For things like camo, the only way I can imagine that working is by selecting from a list of colour schemes in the Options tab. It's not as effective as, say, each player having his or her own camo (which would be rather hard, but kudos to Eidos if they pull it off) but I think that's the most practical route to go.

crazyhorse128
24th Jul 2008, 16:12
Just like a little drop down menu with all the selections listed is what I meant :)

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 16:16
Moe Moe War II??


You mean personalization. Personification is this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Mechamusume.jpg

That is a Sherman MBT, by the way.

For things like camo, the only way I can imagine that working is by selecting from a list of colour schemes in the Options tab. It's not as effective as, say, each player having his or her own camo (which would be rather hard, but kudos to Eidos if they pull it off) but I think that's the most practical route to go.

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 16:25
Does anybody know if there is going to be a film option in the multiplayer like halo 3 or not? I think it would be completely awsome for recapturing teethgrinding dogfights in pacific...:cool:

MrPink45
24th Jul 2008, 16:27
On the face it would be nice but it would kind of break the WWII setting with everyone having custom nose art.

Wait, if you scroll up on my screen, there's even custom nose art on that bomber...

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 16:35
Wait, if you scroll up on my screen, there's even custom nose art on that bomber...

yes, but nose art is, if I am not mistaken, only done on ally planes. Plus nose art was done on planes only. So you have 1 sided planes only art work.

com345
24th Jul 2008, 17:02
yes, but nose art is, if I am not mistaken, only done on ally planes. Plus nose art was done on planes only. So you have 1 sided planes only art work.

thats true but if you could change paint sceme for example?
this would work for both sides
of course it wouldnt be good for realism but it would bring some additional fun and personality into the game

arrow is right! nearly noone will have the time to look at nosearts in battle but
i still would like to see em its just because i love to look at the planes!

i also still would like selectable/coustumiceable colour scemes on ships
but i guess this idea doesnt find a lot of friends out there

chip5541
24th Jul 2008, 18:23
Thinking about it craft (plane and ships) could have custom color designs since many had different paint jobs during the war. I was thinking more along the lines of teh nose art. Individual nose art or custom decals just wouldn't be noticed that much, I bet it would be long for XXX nose art to show us as well, as anyone who has played pacific Storm or its sequel would tell you. When the action starts it just isn't that noticeable if at all.

Arrow
24th Jul 2008, 18:47
That being my main point. Having played Ace Combat for about 10 years now, I can say for certain that seeing even the camo on a plane is hard, let alone the nose art on the plane itself. Once the action starts, no one will really care you have a naked woman on the side of your plane. Hence my saying, "It's one thing that can be implemented for bonus points or in a patch, but it's something we can live without".

Changing camo would be interesting though, especially if its just like changing the controls from an SP game (I don't think it'd be possible to change the camo of planes while in a MP game).

crazyhorse128
24th Jul 2008, 19:45
But what about if the whole body is painted a different colour, for example a green B-17 etc.

Arrow
24th Jul 2008, 20:48
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. No one will really pay attention to the camo of the plane, just that it's flying and that it's gonna try to do something your allies won't like (bomb it to bits).

M0n3y
25th Jul 2008, 10:05
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. No one will really pay attention to the camo of the plane, just that it's flying and that it's gonna try to do something your allies won't like (bomb it to bits).

that's so true...
why do you need it anyway?
you will see that squadron(with the indicator), even when they are camouflaged...
so i don't see the point in it...

Arrow
25th Jul 2008, 12:28
The only sense I can imagine is making it a little more "personalized" with hopefully being able to select the camos from a list on the options tab. I don't think there's the need or the use of having each individual player have his/her own camo, so just pick from a list of like, 5 or 10.

com345
25th Jul 2008, 16:02
The only sense I can imagine is making it a little more "personalized" with hopefully being able to select the camos from a list on the options tab. I don't think there's the need or the use of having each individual player have his/her own camo, so just pick from a list of like, 5 or 10.


this are nearly my thoughts aswell

if you have like 5 or 10 different paint scemes
each paint sceme consist usually out of 2 or 3 colours
so if you get 5 or 10 colours to choose from you would already have an big variety of paint scemes without looking ridicolus
so you would see no bright yellow yamato sailing around and stuff like this

yes its about personalizing and something else i specialy aim for:

clans would be able to have their own paint scemes then and this is something i really would love

it is true that there is no need for it considering gameplay but it would give most ppl more fun (maybe they also start taking care of their units then, who knows)
its like ingame "eyecandy" for me

MrPink45
25th Jul 2008, 16:05
[QUOTE=My whole point was after you tell the planes to land, you lose control over them and they land on there own. Allowing the player to launch a new squad (up to 6 squads on the carrier setup we have in BS:M 3 landing 3 flying)[/QUOTE]

But how does that solve the problem, if i'm correct (if not disregard this) people complain about ditching because players get planes up too fast over and over again because they ditch them, if we did what u said, then planes would get back up in the air even faster after you were done with the old ones. Basically your cutting out the sometimes long process of crashing three bombers high up in the air...

Arrow
25th Jul 2008, 16:28
But how does that solve the problem, if i'm correct (if not disregard this) people complain about ditching because players get planes up too fast over and over again because they ditch them, if we did what u said, then planes would get back up in the air even faster after you were done with the old ones. Basically your cutting out the sometimes long process of crashing three bombers high up in the air...

You don't crash carpet bombers. Carpet bombers you fly off the map. Torpedo and dive bombers you crash. Those ones are easy since they have to fly close to water/land anyway. And Sibuyan is the ONLY map in the game, next to MI, that has controllable carpet bombers anyway.

I think the best way to go is to free up a slot when one of these two events occurs:
1. The player aircraft has already landed (since you can't control the wingmates anyway, this shouldn't be a problem).
2. When the player aircraft is ordered to land

andy3536
26th Jul 2008, 07:17
I would hate to order planes to land only to later realise i want to use them to down some torp bombers.

Just mabee have it so that if perfectly servicable aircraft are crashed/ditched you'll be given a delay punishing you even longer than ordering them to land.

And mabee have more slots available so that if you have 4 flights of 3 and 2 are down from one and one from another you could launch another flight. But still keeping the same overall cap.

Arrow
26th Jul 2008, 17:04
That's why you check to see who's around before ordering planes to land. Even if you did, according to our system you'd be able to launch fighters from the CV. It would only be a problem if the CV was far away from the fleet.

ricbar89
26th Jul 2008, 17:32
bombs can be shot during their descent

WTF? What game do you think this is.....

Arrow
26th Jul 2008, 18:23
Nice job misquoting me. I never said that.

andy3536
26th Jul 2008, 18:33
That's why you check to see who's around before ordering planes to land. Even if you did, according to our system you'd be able to launch fighters from the CV. It would only be a problem if the CV was far away from the fleet.

'Our system'

It's been suggested for 2 years, but it's still piontless. What if your aircraft get shot down on the way back because you couldn't take control and dogfight.

What if the AI is poor and they fly over and enemy ship/ground installation (which would be common as the planes would almost certainly fly back the quickest route in a line)

What if you only have 3 of that type of aircraft left, ordering them to land would mean you still have to wait for them to land anyway.

the idea throws up more problems tha it's solveing.

The only thing they should do is open up more slots, so that all the time your not at your max you can launch more.

Even if they were to leave it as it is and punish ditching and with minus points and reward saving, you know how fanatical some kids are about the ranking system they wouldn't dare.

Arrow
26th Jul 2008, 18:38
You'd still get a free slot, like I said. So long as the squad isn't selectable and controllable by the player, it shouldn't take up a slot.

So if the player-controlled plane has landed and the AI planes are in the process of landing, then a slot is freed.

If the player controlled plane is shot down, then control switches over to one of the CPU wingmen, and a slot isn't freed.

Shouldn't that work?

andy3536
26th Jul 2008, 18:47
You'd still get a free slot, like I said. So long as the squad isn't selectable and controllable by the player, it shouldn't take up a slot.

So if the player-controlled plane has landed and the AI planes are in the process of landing, then a slot is freed.

If the player controlled plane is shot down, then control switches over to one of the CPU wingmen, and a slot isn't freed.

Shouldn't that work?

But it still throws up all the probs i listed, i would rather this idea was just dropped tbh. Your solving 1 and creating half a dozen.

If it were punished in a ranked match the way most want to be top of the pionts table and rankings it'll cut those ditching drasticly.

Africa_TRUINSANE
26th Jul 2008, 18:54
UM howzit guys and gals ;)

this may be completely offtopic and i apologise in advance
BUT i got no clue as to HOW I CAN START A NEW THREAD?
how do i start one? :( :nut:

Arrow
26th Jul 2008, 18:55
I still don't see the major problems with it. You've only mentioned two so far ("What if the AI is poor and they fly over and enemy ship/ground installation, which would be common as the planes would almost certainly fly back the quickest route in a line" and "What if you only have 3 of that type of aircraft left, ordering them to land would mean you still have to wait for them to land anyway") and neither of which seem to be major problems in my mind.

Regarding the first one - if they decide to fly over AAA then that's really the player's problem of sending them into a hostile zone in the first place. I think what you're getting at is if you decide to attack at an odd angle to avoid a large barrier of AA and you want them to return along the same route back. In that sense, you're right.

Regarding the second one, if you only have three planes of that type anyway, you have to make the decision of to launch early and with reduced numbers or later with larger numbers. That decision would invariably depend on whether the CV is defensive or not - the closer an enemy DD is, the faster you'll want to go through your planes.

The system is hardly foolproof, but I think it's the most foolproof one we've developed so far; if you have a better idea, then suggest it. It's what the forums are for, after all. But a point penalty won't matter to me because I know I'm ditching my planes, albeit unwillingly, for the benefit of the team and my own CV.

Some Guy
26th Jul 2008, 19:51
UM howzit guys and gals ;)

this may be completely offtopic and i apologise in advance
BUT i got no clue as to HOW I CAN START A NEW THREAD?
how do i start one? :( :nut:



uhhh bottom left of the site
http://forums.eidosgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=256

andy3536
27th Jul 2008, 07:52
I still don't see the major problems with it. You've only mentioned two so far ("What if the AI is poor and they fly over and enemy ship/ground installation, which would be common as the planes would almost certainly fly back the quickest route in a line" and "What if you only have 3 of that type of aircraft left, ordering them to land would mean you still have to wait for them to land anyway") and neither of which seem to be major problems in my mind.

Regarding the first one - if they decide to fly over AAA then that's really the player's problem of sending them into a hostile zone in the first place. I think what you're getting at is if you decide to attack at an odd angle to avoid a large barrier of AA and you want them to return along the same route back. In that sense, you're right.

Regarding the second one, if you only have three planes of that type anyway, you have to make the decision of to launch early and with reduced numbers or later with larger numbers. That decision would invariably depend on whether the CV is defensive or not - the closer an enemy DD is, the faster you'll want to go through your planes.

The system is hardly foolproof, but I think it's the most foolproof one we've developed so far; if you have a better idea, then suggest it. It's what the forums are for, after all. But a point penalty won't matter to me because I know I'm ditching my planes, albeit unwillingly, for the benefit of the team and my own CV.



And what if you want to take over the aircraft again for a strafing run or dogfightingand you can't, thats 3.

They may seem minor but there just as minor as the problem your trying to solve.
There are far easier and less problematic ways of changing peoples habbits in game.

Red October
27th Jul 2008, 13:37
I'm with Andy on this one. The other process is to complicated. Just open up more slots for the carriers. And to counter balance the planes give ships their actual number of AA guns and everyone is happy.

Arrow
27th Jul 2008, 14:26
I think I'm making it more complicated than it really is, because at least to me, it's hardly a complicated concept at all. When you lose control of a squad, a slot opens up. I personally think it's a bigger problem if people are plane rushing with vast numbers of them, considering player-controlled AA will fire only on one target at a time. And I still hate having to constantly ditch my planes.

Cpt Nevil
27th Jul 2008, 16:12
...I dunno if anyone else has brought this up, but in Midway, I always wondered why 500lb airial bombs almost have no effect on capital ships...one or two flights was plenty to do a destroyer in...but anything else it seemed like there was almost no effect except scratching the paint. If I recall, a few well placed 500lb bombs spelled certain doom for a number of American Battleships at Pearl as well as alot of Japanese carriers. Will dive bombers in Pacific be able to cause the right amount of dammage as they should or were they purposely dumbed down (no pun intended) for the sake of balance in the game? (Midway)

M0n3y
27th Jul 2008, 16:50
but anything else it seemed like there was almost no effect except scratching the paint.

not even that :(
the paint just won't go off :cool: ;)


If I recall, a few well placed 500lb bombs spelled certain doom for a number of American Battleships at Pearl
USS Arizona...she went down after 1 hit :(

Arrow
27th Jul 2008, 17:01
...I dunno if anyone else has brought this up, but in Midway, I always wondered why 500lb airial bombs almost have no effect on capital ships...one or two flights was plenty to do a destroyer in...but anything else it seemed like there was almost no effect except scratching the paint. If I recall, a few well placed 500lb bombs spelled certain doom for a number of American Battleships at Pearl as well as alot of Japanese carriers. Will dive bombers in Pacific be able to cause the right amount of dammage as they should or were they purposely dumbed down (no pun intended) for the sake of balance in the game? (Midway)

I have no doubt that it was to balance the game. Can you imagine a battleship going down after being struck by just a few torpedoes? If you were to take Samar as an example, all one would need are three Zeros (for defence), three Judies, and three Kates and the enemy would be down a battleship.

andy3536
27th Jul 2008, 18:11
I have no doubt that it was to balance the game. Can you imagine a battleship going down after being struck by just a few torpedoes? If you were to take Samar as an example, all one would need are three Zeros (for defence), three Judies, and three Kates and the enemy would be down a battleship.


Think you right, just to make so that it's more balanced. Arizona went sown with 1 hit yet tipitz was attacked with torps, then with dive bombers and torps X craft with 4 tonnes of explosives each and still didn't sink untill she was hit with 3 12,000lb tall boy bombs.

Jack459
27th Jul 2008, 18:44
I have no doubt that it was to balance the game. Can you imagine a battleship going down after being struck by just a few torpedoes? If you were to take Samar as an example, all one would need are three Zeros (for defence), three Judies, and three Kates and the enemy would be down a battleship.

Yea and then you would be down the Yamato and the game would be over. There is balance there bewtween the opposing forces except it gives the carriers advantage over the battleships like it almost always was.

Arrow
27th Jul 2008, 21:09
This is one of those places where you have to sacrifice realism for playability. I'd be so annoyed losing a destroyer to a single torpedo bomber. >.>

Cpt Nevil
27th Jul 2008, 22:56
This is one of those places where you have to sacrifice realism for playability. I'd be so annoyed losing a destroyer to a single torpedo bomber. >.>

..I understand the playability part, Im not asking for a one bomb kill...but it should at least cause some dammage near or equivalent to a torp hit. Most of us when we are in control of a capital ship set the waterpumps to full as the game starts since thats what usually brings them down is flooding. But letting the bombs cause a little more dammage might make it more of a challenge to stay afloat if you also had to worry about a fire setting your magazine off as well as waterlogged compatrments.

Arrow
28th Jul 2008, 01:18
I'm sure they're fixing that part already. It's because of the way the damage control is set up (see Strategywiki ship tactics article for the link to the post which outlines ship repair) the only way for a ship to die is by flooding. Fire doesn't do any damage to a ship and that's the only other way for a ship to die, so that leaves just water. I'm sure they're fixing that already.

Besides, I've had to make tough decisions too when under fire. The biggest question is, when you're in a BB, whether or not to get your guns back online and die faster or die slower but with fewer shells?

sstoffels
28th Jul 2008, 02:33
:D one thing that would boost long term playablity would be a variety of units in multiplayer ships are good but planes and subs. first off dogfighting can get boring cause it is always the same dogfight wildcat vs the zero except sibuyan but where are the p 40s and the oscars. so for bsp have all the wildcats the hellcats, coursirs,p 40s, p 38s and maybe hurrcanes playable in mulityplayer and lets not forget the the zeros oscars shirdens raidens and gekkos and any other new fighters for ijn should be playable too. heck why can't cousirs and hell cats be spilt up on a carrier. maybe one of the things skirmish could do is to pick the planes that come from your airfleids within reson of course cause then it would be just p 38s and shirdens. and subs all the subs are the same the 2 big ones any way they move at the same speed and look the same and have the same aa and artillary and have exacty 24 torps swich that up too more classes and and differnt specs. and all the units in the game sould be playable at some point like i've never drove the hurracane or any of the ijn floatplanes what is the point of haveing tem in then. so more variety of planes and subs and with all those new fighters it should fun.

MrPink45
28th Jul 2008, 02:56
You don't crash carpet bombers. Carpet bombers you fly off the map. Torpedo and dive bombers you crash. Those ones are easy since they have to fly close to water/land anyway. And Sibuyan is the ONLY map in the game, next to MI, that has controllable carpet bombers anyway.

I think the best way to go is to free up a slot when one of these two events occurs:
1. The player aircraft has already landed (since you can't control the wingmates anyway, this shouldn't be a problem).
2. When the player aircraft is ordered to land

But essentially this does not solve the problem, if I am correct "1." is very very similar to Midway, but yes it does in fact help a tad bit.(your saving the time of the other two planes landing) Then there's "2.", which if you think about it, is almost the same as ditching. You are giving a land command instead making a B-line for the land/water. So once again it ends up being a quicker process than ditching... Unless the complaining is not about people getting their planes up too fast after their missions, then I don't understand how that would solve the problem?

MrPink45
28th Jul 2008, 03:00
But it still throws up all the probs i listed, i would rather this idea was just dropped tbh. Your solving 1 and creating half a dozen.

If it were punished in a ranked match the way most want to be top of the pionts table and rankings it'll cut those ditching drasticly.

Thankyou, somebody else agrees, Your the first person I've seen that has a sensible opinion about this other than myself...:thumbsup:

Arrow
28th Jul 2008, 13:42
The idea is to stop people from ditching planes in order to save time. #1 is nothing like Midway - I've had squadrons with two AI controlled planes circle the airfield incessantly trying to land, the whole while they're taking up a slot that could be used to put more planes up. That's partly why I crash my whole squadron rather than wait for them to land.

For #2, if they're ordered to land, they still take up a slot the whole way while they're flying back. I'm saying if they didn't when they went back, it might curb the senseless ditching of planes to save time.

This, coupled with some other ideas (more slots, fewer planes, for instance) would really stop players from ditching their planes.

andy3536
28th Jul 2008, 16:29
It's been a known problem for a long while and i'm sure the Devs have done somthing to improve it.

Lets wait, see what they do and if that works.

Then we'll come back and tell them were they went wrong :rolleyes: :rasp:

MrPink45
28th Jul 2008, 19:42
The idea is to stop people from ditching planes in order to save time. #1 is nothing like Midway - I've had squadrons with two AI controlled planes circle the airfield incessantly trying to land, the whole while they're taking up a slot that could be used to put more planes up. That's partly why I crash my whole squadron rather than wait for them to land.

For #2, if they're ordered to land, they still take up a slot the whole way while they're flying back. I'm saying if they didn't when they went back, it might curb the senseless ditching of planes to save time.

This, coupled with some other ideas (more slots, fewer planes, for instance) would really stop players from ditching their planes.

Still then, I don't understand why ditching is such a big deal? If the problem is not people putting planes up too fast, then what's the problem?

battleshipman
28th Jul 2008, 21:57
Still then, I don't understand why ditching is such a big deal? If the problem is not people putting planes up too fast, then what's the problem?

I think the problem is with the time it takes planes to land. It forces you to ditch your planes(or crash them in) even if you don't want to. Granted this isn't on every map but its still annoying.

M0n3y
29th Jul 2008, 10:51
I've had squadrons with two AI controlled planes circle the airfield incessantly trying to land, the whole while they're taking up a slot that could be used to put more planes up



if they're ordered to land, they still take up a slot the whole way while they're flying back.
so if you order that squadron to land, they open a slot to send a new squadron while the other one lands?
sounds good =)

Arrow
29th Jul 2008, 10:53
so if you order that squadron to land, they open a slot to send a new squadron while the other one lands?
sounds good =)

Exactly.

To compensate though, you lose control of the squad. Otherwise you could have practically your entire compliment of planes airbourne at one time, completely defeating the purpose of the slots.

M0n3y
29th Jul 2008, 11:01
Exactly.

To compensate though, you lose control of the squad. Otherwise you could have practically your entire compliment of planes airbourne at one time, completely defeating the purpose of the slots.

yeah ofcourse!
that should work out very good! *hint eidos, hint!* ;)

David603
30th Jul 2008, 21:19
...I dunno if anyone else has brought this up, but in Midway, I always wondered why 500lb airial bombs almost have no effect on capital ships...one or two flights was plenty to do a destroyer in...but anything else it seemed like there was almost no effect except scratching the paint. If I recall, a few well placed 500lb bombs spelled certain doom for a number of American Battleships at Pearl as well as alot of Japanese carriers. Will dive bombers in Pacific be able to cause the right amount of dammage as they should or were they purposely dumbed down (no pun intended) for the sake of balance in the game? (Midway)
The bomb that destroyed the USS Arizona was a specially adapted 16in shell dropped by a Kate torpedo bomber. The bomb weighed around 1700lbs and was able to penetrate the Arizona's relatively thin deck armour with no problems. However, a 500lb bomb wouldn't penetrate even the thin deck armour of an elderly battleship like Arizona, but could cause superficial damage.

By contrast, American and Japanese carriers lack deck armour, so a 500lb bomb in the right place could put the flight deck out of action. Despite this, the carrier is not likely to sink unless munitions or fuel catch fire, as happened to several Japanese carriers at Midway.

Arrow
31st Jul 2008, 00:03
When one really thinks about it, battleships are meant to have strong deck armour. They are, after all, meant to sink other large warships. Other large warships had large guns themselves, and therefore had their armour focused on the deck and belt rather than underwater (or so I'm led to believe; could be wrong).

I think it would make the most sense to simply have dive bombers, when ordered to dive bomb a battleship, aim for the turrets. The turrets have less HP than the whole BB, and knocking out a turret can definitely change the tide of battle.

LORD BLACKFIRE
31st Jul 2008, 13:55
An old request, often repeated by others, but one I have to make again: PLEASE include either a stat that can be referenced from a menu or a symbol that can be seen right off in the room lobby indicating the frequency a host quits.

I know this may cause a technical problem distinguishing between actual quits, connection dropped, and 360 freeze ups but it really doesn't matter. You can combine all three into a "sessions completed" % indicator.

Some people try to host when they shouldn't given their bad connections. It would be beneficial for everyone if they could see what they are getting into when they come into a room.

This was inspired by an incident yesterday on Solomons where a host pulled the plug right before our full wave of bombers reached his last two remaining, and already nearly destroyed, land installations. We were playing the American side and had battled hard for quite a while to get the victory. But what do expect from somebody with the words "Saddom" & "420" in their gamertag? :mad2:

I had the great ironic joy of following him into a room where he wasn't hosting, grabbing the last slot available on his team without looking, and finding myself sitting in the Yamato on Samar. His CV and DD were shredded with a great deal of vengeful trash talking on my part. There is justice.:lol:

David603
31st Jul 2008, 14:05
When one really thinks about it, battleships are meant to have strong deck armour. They are, after all, meant to sink other large warships. Other large warships had large guns themselves, and therefore had their armour focused on the deck and belt rather than underwater (or so I'm led to believe; could be wrong).
Battleships have an armoured citadel or box that provides protection for a large proportion of the hull. The armour deck usualy covers from the forward main turret to the rear main turret, often sloping down at the sides to meet the belt (side) armour, with additional lighter armour sometimes present forward and aft. The belt armour covers between forward and aft main turrets, joined at the top with the deck armour and stretching down below the waterline to provide protection against shells that fall short. Heavy armoured bulkheads across the ship and joined to each end of the belt and deck armour areas forms the rest of the armour box. The turrets and magazines recieve further individual protection that is thicker than any of the rest of the ships armour.

Underwater, layers of air and liquid filled compartments provide some protection against torpedoes but unfortunately not enough, it being almost impossible to provide sufficient protection against torpedoes without making huge sacrifices elsewhere. The whole hull is heavily subdivided to minimize the damage from a hit that does get through the armour.

By contrast, a cruiser has much lighter deck and belt armour, lacks the torpedo defense system and is much less heavily subdivided. And a cruisers guns would have great difficulty penetrating any part of a battleship armor sytem.

I think it would make the most sense to simply have dive bombers, when ordered to dive bomb a battleship, aim for the turrets. The turrets have less HP than the whole BB, and knocking out a turret can definitely change the tide of battle.
Turrets are the most heavily armoured part of a battleship. A 1000lb bomb from a divebomber might penetrate, but most likely it would just explode on contact, doing almost no damage.

Arrow
31st Jul 2008, 22:41
Turrets are the most heavily armoured part of a battleship. A 1000lb bomb from a divebomber might penetrate, but most likely it would just explode on contact, doing almost no damage.

Dauntlesses equip 1000 pound bombs in BSM anyway, if I recall correctly.

It's quite obvious that in BSM, the turrets have far less health than the rest of the ship, so wouldn't it make sense to have dive bombers simply strike the turrets instead and seek to bring those offline?

I highly doubt that in BSP the turrets will have more health than the rest of the ship. I just can't see that happening.

David603
1st Aug 2008, 00:14
Dauntlesses equip 1000 pound bombs in BSM anyway, if I recall correctly.

It's quite obvious that in BSM, the turrets have far less health than the rest of the ship, so wouldn't it make sense to have dive bombers simply strike the turrets instead and seek to bring those offline?

I highly doubt that in BSP the turrets will have more health than the rest of the ship. I just can't see that happening.
Weapons that can't penetrate the armour they are impacting on shouldn't cause damage anyway. A destroyer could empty its entire supply of 5in shells into a battleship without standing any chance of sinking it. A 6in gunned CL would fare little better, though an 8in gunned cruiser might be able to sink a battleship given a lot of time and no retaliation from the battleship. Even a battleships secondary armament of 6, 5.25, or 5 in guns should sink a 8in gunned cruiser long before the cruiser sunk the battleship, which makes the current situation of two heavy cruisers being a good match for a battleship rather unrealistic.

Arrow
1st Aug 2008, 00:30
That's more or less how it works currently. You can't overpower the battleships either, though, keep in mind. DD guns cause no damage against BBs, CA guns cause quite a bit of damage to BBs.

But I was referring mainly to the role of dive bombers in the next game. Unless you want to remove them entirely (which I strongly disagree at), dive bombers need to be useful at something. Sure, destroyers always work, but torpedo bombers work well too. Dive bombers need their niche in battle, and destroying turrets on a BB seems like a good one.

battleshipman
1st Aug 2008, 00:42
That's more or less how it works currently. You can't overpower the battleships either, though, keep in mind. DD guns cause no damage against BBs, CA guns cause quite a bit of damage to BBs.

But I was referring mainly to the role of dive bombers in the next game. Unless you want to remove them entirely (which I strongly disagree at), dive bombers need to be useful at something. Sure, destroyers always work, but torpedo bombers work well too. Dive bombers need their niche in battle, and destroying turrets on a BB seems like a good one.

Not really, They need to be able to do more than just damage the gun turrets on a BB. If I repeatedly bomb a BB then that BB's armor should be weakend. Just shrugging the bombs off makes for alot of useless planes on the CV if your side doesn't have anything left other than CV's and DD's.

David603
1st Aug 2008, 01:00
Not really, They need to be able to do more than just damage the gun turrets on a BB. If I repeatedly bomb a BB then that BB's armor should be weakend. Just shrugging the bombs off makes for alot of useless planes on the CV if your side doesn't have anything left other than CV's and DD's.
If you repeatedly bomb a battleship, then unless you repeatedly hit the exact same location you shouldn't be able to put a bomb through the armour. The damage model in BSP needs to be much more detailed, with damage being specific to areas instead of the current simple system of wearing down the health bar until the ship sinks.

Arrow
1st Aug 2008, 03:17
If you repeatedly bomb a battleship, then unless you repeatedly hit the exact same location you shouldn't be able to put a bomb through the armour. The damage model in BSP needs to be much more detailed, with damage being specific to areas instead of the current simple system of wearing down the health bar until the ship sinks.

Ships definitely have different areas, it's just that the body and the underwater sections are just too...generic (for lack of a better word), and that damage to one section of it counts as a hit to the whole.

The HP gauge, at any rate, tracks damage to the underwater section, since that is the section that, when destroyed, causes the ship to sink. If BSP were to split the body and underwater sections into multiple sub-sections (but not too small, otherwise it'll be impossible to hit the same spot enough times) then it will likely open up a whole new world for gameplay - bombs to the same spot causes considerably more damage, and capsizing becomes a very real risk if all the torpedoes strike the same spot.

David603
1st Aug 2008, 14:21
Ships definitely have different areas, it's just that the body and the underwater sections are just too...generic (for lack of a better word), and that damage to one section of it counts as a hit to the whole.One example of that is I had a Kongo class on Solomons that had been in a fight with a Renown. I had around 50% health left after sinking the Renown, but the armour bar had gone all the way down. Since I had previously taken out the American shipyards and was just rounding up the remaining ships, I turned south and went for the carriers. At this point there was a full wave of 18 Dauntlesses heading north to attack the airfields, and seeing how close the Kongo was the American player ordered them to attack the Kongo, which they did, sinking Kongo even though the health bar said 50% damage. Why bombing the deck of a ship should cause catastrophic flooding I don't know, but the damage model is definately way to generalised.

The HP gauge, at any rate, tracks damage to the underwater section, since that is the section that, when destroyed, causes the ship to sink. If BSP were to split the body and underwater sections into multiple sub-sections (but not too small, otherwise it'll be impossible to hit the same spot enough times) then it will likely open up a whole new world for gameplay - bombs to the same spot causes considerably more damage, and capsizing becomes a very real risk if all the torpedoes strike the same spot.
I would love to see that implemented in BSP.

crazyhorse128
1st Aug 2008, 15:41
a very real risk if all the torpedoes strike the same spot.

Thats already true about BSM :scratch:

Arrow
1st Aug 2008, 20:44
One example of that is I had a Kongo class on Solomons that had been in a fight with a Renown. I had around 50% health left after sinking the Renown, but the armour bar had gone all the way down. Since I had previously taken out the American shipyards and was just rounding up the remaining ships, I turned south and went for the carriers. At this point there was a full wave of 18 Dauntlesses heading north to attack the airfields, and seeing how close the Kongo was the American player ordered them to attack the Kongo, which they did, sinking Kongo even though the health bar said 50% damage. Why bombing the deck of a ship should cause catastrophic flooding I don't know, but the damage model is definately way to generalised.

I would love to see that implemented in BSP.

The reason behind flooding from dive bombing attacks is that any hit to a destroyed section counts as a hit to underwater. With the body section destroyed, any further hits to the body count as hits to the underwater section. Therefore, in this sense, a dive bomber hit on a ship with a destroyed body (no bridge) counts as a torpedo hit.

One thing that just came to mind with torpedo alpha-striking (i.e unloading all your torps into one spot on an enemy warship)...it seems too easy to capsize a ship then. Unlike real-life subs, these subs generally fire all their torpedoes at once rather than one at a time. Therefore, unloading all your torps at the same spot on a single target (something that is ridiculously easy in BSM) would result in a ton of damage by default. Hopefully I'm being a little clear here...

At any rate, if what I'm saying is true, then a submarine attack may become overpowered if something isn't done.


Thats already true about BSM :scratch:

Are you sure? I haven't noted anything. If you're referring to the capsize, that's only after the ship sinks.

crazyhorse128
1st Aug 2008, 21:40
im not refering to ships capsizeing, but for instance the ships hulls are devided into 3 areas, the stern, mid-rift and bow. And in the Dammage control screen as far as flooding goes each one has its own light for flooding.

And the flooding has 3 levels in its servarity

Red October
1st Aug 2008, 21:40
capsizing becomes a very real risk if all the torpedoes strike the same spot.

How about counter flooding to fix this problem and it would add more depth to the game.

com345
2nd Aug 2008, 09:25
How about counter flooding to fix this problem and it would add more depth to the game.

i think stuff like counterflooding takes it too far

M0n3y
2nd Aug 2008, 11:05
i think stuff like counterflooding takes it too far

he might be right about that >.>

a few bombs on a ship won't do much (on heavier ships)
bhut like he said...18 bombs can give quite a punch...especially when the armor is gone

MrPink45
4th Aug 2008, 03:32
An old request, often repeated by others, but one I have to make again: PLEASE include either a stat that can be referenced from a menu or a symbol that can be seen right off in the room lobby indicating the frequency a host quits.

I know this may cause a technical problem distinguishing between actual quits, connection dropped, and 360 freeze ups but it really doesn't matter. You can combine all three into a "sessions completed" % indicator.

Some people try to host when they shouldn't given their bad connections. It would be beneficial for everyone if they could see what they are getting into when they come into a room.

This was inspired by an incident yesterday on Solomons where a host pulled the plug right before our full wave of bombers reached his last two remaining, and already nearly destroyed, land installations. We were playing the American side and had battled hard for quite a while to get the victory. But what do expect from somebody with the words "Saddom" & "420" in their gamertag? :mad2:

I had the great ironic joy of following him into a room where he wasn't hosting, grabbing the last slot available on his team without looking, and finding myself sitting in the Yamato on Samar. His CV and DD were shredded with a great deal of vengeful trash talking on my part. There is justice.:lol:

His moral victory though, i mean u let it get to you which is a bad thing... I think the idea isn't that great just cuz after a while there will be a select group of hosts that everbody goes to because of their little status icon, but when you want to just have a good game with friends and want to controll the settings but people won't join because your icon isn't good enough... then people get pissed

Arrow
4th Aug 2008, 18:15
I think the main solution there would be treating the host just like any other player. Have things go by votes rather than giving the host so much power (i.e kicking).

Thedivingmongoose
4th Aug 2008, 19:03
I think the main solution there would be treating the host just like any other player. Have things go by votes rather than giving the host so much power (i.e kicking).

That seems like a good idea. There could be two kinds of servers a host could make a more "dictator-ish" type of one and one that the votes count for much more. People would be more prone to join the latter because of its freedom from the host.

Starfury
5th Aug 2008, 10:25
But I was referring mainly to the role of dive bombers in the next game. Unless you want to remove them entirely (which I strongly disagree at), dive bombers need to be useful at something. Sure, destroyers always work, but torpedo bombers work well too. Dive bombers need their niche in battle, and destroying turrets on a BB seems like a good one.
I'd say that against anything from a CA down, dive bombers are already very useful, especially since they're so much harder to shoot down.

Arrow
5th Aug 2008, 15:33
I'd say that against anything from a CA down, dive bombers are already very useful, especially since they're so much harder to shoot down.

Really depends...they don't fly as high as carpet bombers, which are nigh impossible to shoot down with AA. Dive bombers are harder to shoot down once they get right on top of you and you have to swivel the mouse like crazy to get on top of them. But solid players and the AI don't have a lot of trouble downing them.

Which is why I think machine guns strike way too high, and that flak guns should be the main way of downing carpet bombers. I know that's how it goes in Navy Field.

MrPink45
11th Aug 2008, 12:26
anybody agree with some sort of map editor/creator feature?

David603
11th Aug 2008, 13:30
anybody agree with some sort of map editor/creator feature?
That is quite possibly the most wanted and most requested feature for BSP. But since we don't know yet if it will be included in BSP, we need to keep asking to drive it home to the devs that this is what we want most.