PDA

View Full Version : Ships Gun Range ?



w2509
27th Dec 2008, 06:53
Same as Midway ? is it more of sailing your BS and so on up "close" and having a shootout.

CaptHawkeye
27th Dec 2008, 23:34
Based on the videos unfortunately yes. I guess the devs figure long range fire is unsatisfying because 95% of the rounds you fire would miss. Personally I get a kick out of that, because when you do get that hit it's all the more satisfying. Remember we're dealing with the impatience generation in games though.

SuperE
28th Dec 2008, 08:53
Why are they trying to get people over from games like COD and Gears of war I don't what a whole bunch of cursing little kids to start annoying everyone playing it ruins the game.

Other than that you need to be able to hid from gunfire and the map sizes aren't infinate.

Der_BB_MAN
29th Dec 2008, 07:28
1.sail
2.get shot at by DD
3.WHAT HAPPENED TO MY RANGE
4.ABANDON SHIP

It3llig3nc3
29th Dec 2008, 13:21
So far it looks like the ranges are not going to change significantly.
We had a terribly long discussion about this back at the BS:M forums. There were arguments on both sides (Getting closer to real vs. being playable in an action game platform).

My take is that the current setup is really a kind of "FPS shooter" approach. I do not like the fact that the DDs have almost the same range as the CA/CLs. I’m more willing to accept the fact that the BB’s range has to be relatively short given the 10miles x 10miles battlefield size.

However given the fact that there won’t be any modding or customizing possibility in BS:P we’re (again) at the “mercy” of the DEVs to determine this for us.

CaptHawkeye
29th Dec 2008, 13:57
Bear in mind I never claimed the game's fire ranges should be realistic. (In fact I don't really think anyone did claim that. Their arguments were straw manned into it.) I just said they should be longer to emulate the extreme ranges naval combat is fought at in the modern age. It just seems like the ships are right next to each other once they're within range. Light AA fire has greater range in this game than battleship primaries do.

Like I said, I just appreciate challenge in my shooting and I hate simplistic "POINT -> KILL" mechanics. Besides it'd be a cool way to have fire directors matters in the game.

It3llig3nc3
29th Dec 2008, 15:43
Bear in mind I never claimed the game's fire ranges should be realistic. (In fact I don't really think anyone did claim that.

I said CLOSER to real. It can not be real as the battlefield is 10miles wide so it would mean practically being able to shoot with a BB from anywhere to anywhere.



I just said they should be longer to emulate the extreme ranges naval combat is fought at in the modern age. It just seems like the ships are right next to each other once they're within range.

I was talking about the RELATIVE range difference for the various units. On a 10x10miles field "extreme distance" would need a new definition :)


Light AA fire has greater range in this game than battleship primaries do.

Well that's true for DDs and CA/CLs for sure. Effective AA range is 1.0miles in the game so a DD can shoot farther with AA than with main batteries. However for BBs 1.0mile AA vs. 1.7 - 2.1 (Yamato) main battery range...
As I said many times - it looks like the DEVs are emphasizing the action game feeling with this - see what you shoot at :D (not that I like it... ...after trying the torp aim MANUAL mechanism in Silent Hunter III tell me about fire control :D )


Like I said, I just appreciate challenge in my shooting and I hate simplistic "POINT -> KILL" mechanics. Besides it'd be a cool way to have fire directors matters in the game.
Hmmm. You won’t really like BS:P then. In the DEMO I have had a chance to test the aiming mechanism were even SIMPLIFIED over BS:M.

Arrow
29th Dec 2008, 16:20
BSM was more or less a point-and-shoot game anyway - how is it possible to make it even simpler? @_@

CaptHawkeye
29th Dec 2008, 18:07
I'm pretty interested to hear how one goes about making BSM's shooting "simpler". Explain?

It3llig3nc3
30th Dec 2008, 07:29
No need to shoot "ahead" in anticipation of the enemy's movement. Just point at the ship, press fire and the bullets (well shells) are going to go there...

Yamamoto666
30th Dec 2008, 12:53
that kinda takes away from training to hit a target that is going to be where u shot, im not sure if thats what real artillery gunners did, but its more logical to Aim ahead and make the shells hit the ship, its just more lifelike.

CaptHawkeye
30th Dec 2008, 13:44
No need to shoot "ahead" in anticipation of the enemy's movement. Just point at the ship, press fire and the bullets (well shells) are going to go there...

Well that blows. Aim assistance is not something BSP needed. It's the one thing that kept the shooting a bit challenging.

Then again, if it can be shut off, or if this is just their way of implimenting "fire control" as a subsystem then i'd understand.

Arrow
30th Dec 2008, 15:15
Whaddaya mean, no more deflection shooting?? @_@

It3llig3nc3
30th Dec 2008, 15:43
Well I was in a state of shock :eek: when I first noticed this aim assitst feature. I really hope, it will go out of the final version or have at least configurable for multiplayer.

The explanation for the change was more or less that it is better for the player to focus on HOW to destroy the enemy quickly, rather than trying to simply hit it. The idea was that in BS:P it is more important to make a combination of hits to destroy the ships, rather than making a series of hits at the same place as we do in BS:M. So a water leak + fire combo (torp + bomb or torp + shell) will be more efficient in BS:P than in BS:M where a lot of flood (or alternatively a lot of fire) will casue the ship getting killed the fastest. So in order to support this "Combo Hit" mode the targeting system looked to be better if the player can precisely point out the exact section of the ship they intend to shoot at. Think about it, like you’re more the Captain giving the order where to shoot, rather than being the gunnery man. I do not say I like the concept but this is what I learned… We will see hopefully sooner or later who was right :D

LORD BLACKFIRE
30th Dec 2008, 16:12
I'm interested in the new feature where a ship can be slowed down by damage.

It is possible to stop a ship's engines for a few seconds in the current game but the article on GameRadar.com (PC section) implied that a torp to the engines would slow the ship down to a crawl.

If that sort of damage effect will last for at least 2-5 minutes it could really change the tide of a game and the tactics being used. Imagine Sibuyan Sea or Coral Sea where you have DD's escorting a major ship like a BB or the CA Maya. One lucky torp shot could force the escorts to either abandon it, leaving it vulnerable to more sub attacks, or stick with it giving planes more time to get their attacks in. Enemy ships might be able to do end-runs around the wounded ship to get to another target like a CV on Coral.

I could see some players becoming experts at that sort of tactic. Hopefully the devs won't make it too overwhelming.

David603
31st Dec 2008, 14:32
No need to shoot "ahead" in anticipation of the enemy's movement. Just point at the ship, press fire and the bullets (well shells) are going to go there...
Sigh...
I had hoped that the devs would go for more realism as opposed to a more arcadish style of play, gunnery in BSM is already simple to the point that most of the strategy in a ship vs ship battle is exploiting the ability to shoot back at a pursuing ship without receiving hits. Considering that combat takes place at point blank range, its already easy enough to hit other ships, adding auto aim will completely remove skill from the equation.

If I was setting up the gun ranges for the ships, what I would do is take the natural curve of the earth (something the devs seem to have forgotten) and increase it, so instead of a BB having a visual horizon of approximately 15-20 nautical miles I would have a horizon of 4 miles. This would also have benefits concerning draw distance, as detail could be reduced for units over the horizon without a visible change from a detailed close up model to a less detailed distant model.

I would give the BBs gun ranges that could reach over the horizon to 5 miles but since you can't hit what you can't see, you would have wait until visual contact was made at 4 miles. This would give float planes a role, as a spotter could direct fire onto a target just over the visual horizon or increase accuracy at long range by placing a crosshair onto where he wanted the BB to shoot and giving a fire signal. Ships like the Iowa and Yamato, which had greater gun ranges than other BBs would have the camera placed higher to give an increased visual horizon and thus increase the range at which they could shoot.

Combined with slightly larger maps, for example 15x15 miles or 20x20 miles this would (hopefully) add up to an impression of realistic gunnery without having to resort to huge maps and taking ages to get into gun range, and would also place more emphasis on tactical deployment of units and recon.

Polarshark
31st Dec 2008, 16:07
Based on the videos unfortunately yes. I guess the devs figure long range fire is unsatisfying because 95% of the rounds you fire would miss. Personally I get a kick out of that, because when you do get that hit it's all the more satisfying. Remember we're dealing with the impatience generation in games though.

didn't u hear

the devs said that they want the player to experience as much action as possible

SuperE
2nd Jan 2009, 18:42
You have to remember there are land bases and be able to fire at them the whole match would make them useless because they would be destroyed right off the back by a battleship

Waffen
3rd Jan 2009, 21:01
yea your right. But from wacthing the vids the shots have alot more speed like a actual shot from a 12 inch gun instead of like a arcad style thing where you can just follow the jet/air stream behind the shot. And in multi you should try go pirate style in BS:M at point blank with a BB it is FUN!!!!! :lmao:

It3llig3nc3
3rd Jan 2009, 21:55
Sigh...
I had hoped that the devs would go for more realism as opposed to a more arcadish style of play, gunnery in BSM is already simple to the point that most of the strategy in a ship vs ship battle is exploiting the ability to shoot back at a pursuing ship without receiving hits. Considering that combat takes place at point blank range, its already easy enough to hit other ships, adding auto aim will completely remove skill from the equation.

If I was setting up the gun ranges for the ships, what I would do is take the natural curve of the earth (something the devs seem to have forgotten) and increase it, so instead of a BB having a visual horizon of approximately 15-20 nautical miles I would have a horizon of 4 miles. This would also have benefits concerning draw distance, as detail could be reduced for units over the horizon without a visible change from a detailed close up model to a less detailed distant model.

I would give the BBs gun ranges that could reach over the horizon to 5 miles but since you can't hit what you can't see, you would have wait until visual contact was made at 4 miles. This would give float planes a role, as a spotter could direct fire onto a target just over the visual horizon or increase accuracy at long range by placing a crosshair onto where he wanted the BB to shoot and giving a fire signal. Ships like the Iowa and Yamato, which had greater gun ranges than other BBs would have the camera placed higher to give an increased visual horizon and thus increase the range at which they could shoot.

Combined with slightly larger maps, for example 15x15 miles or 20x20 miles this would (hopefully) add up to an impression of realistic gunnery without having to resort to huge maps and taking ages to get into gun range, and would also place more emphasis on tactical deployment of units and recon.

I like this idea very much.
Simulating a "mini Earth" with the curve "steeper" in 5 miles range is a great idea. We know for fact that in BS:P there will be 20x20miles wide maps. So your idea is a perfect fit.
We might even say that not only recon planes could help but also show the effect of the height difference for the various ships. No wonder why BBs have huge "towers" so they can place the fire directors higher. A DD won't be able to have that. :)

anyways great idea - I'm afraid it came a bit late but who knows :D

Arrow
3rd Jan 2009, 23:19
I remember there were players before under the impression that the destruction of the bridge would hamper your targeting ability. Maybe the destruction of the bridge will hamper the aim-assist instead.

Waffen
4th Jan 2009, 00:23
that b cool.

It3llig3nc3
4th Jan 2009, 15:25
I remember there were players before under the impression that the destruction of the bridge would hamper your targeting ability. Maybe the destruction of the bridge will hamper the aim-assist instead.

Or if not that, at least lower the visible horizon :D
Since destroyed bridge can not be rebuilt (like guns) it is a permanent disadvantage. I would love that.