PDA

View Full Version : Petition To Add The Following Us Bb's Into Bsp



Der_BB_MAN
19th Jan 2009, 11:16
Ok

Since some of the American players who may want to see the following ships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec 7 1941.This is a petition to have the following ship classes added to the game,they were refloated,repaired or rebuilt and sent back into battle

Tennessee class Battleship

USS Tennessee
USS California

Colorado class Battleship

USS Maryland
USS West Virginia

Pennsylvania class Battleship

USS Pennsylvania

Nevada class Battleship

USS Nevada

These ships can be found on www.navsource.org

Feel free to sign the petition.These ships do deserve to be in BSP

W4lt3r89
19th Jan 2009, 11:51
Heck, Instead of putting more pressure on the Dev's, they could release SDK's for the game, so we can make the ships ourselves, since releasing the SDK doesn't cost as much as delaying the game further to fulfill more requests.

Note
SDK = Software Development Kit (contains all the tools used to model/alter stuff in the game)
Maybe this would give birth to BS:P Modding community.. I'd gladly help putting in more ships, maps etc etc for the game, as long as the tools needed to do that is provided.

Kreutzberg
19th Jan 2009, 15:10
If there isn't at least on Standard class, that would be a massive disappointment. On the other hand, I don't know that we really need all of them, as they are not that different.

The first class to be added should be one of the 12x14" gun classes. If there is room and time to add another, then I would like to see the Colorado class. Only after those are done would it even be worth thinking about the Nevada class, which would be identical to the New York in terms of firepower.

I know that there are minor differences among the standard classes, but they are likely two small (in BSP terms, anyway) to justify more than those three classes. I'd be happy if they can just get one of them in.

It3llig3nc3
19th Jan 2009, 17:47
I might draw some negative sympathy here, but my opinion is that introducing more differentiation in BB ship classes won’t really help the game a lot.
Let me explain.
Different unit types are only meaningful for me in a game if they represent something different in their performance. I personally(!) do not mind having the same type of ships look exactly the same if they perform the same way as well.
Therefore for BS:P to introduce a new BB class it would require to introduce a new performance model. The armor/speed/firepower combination should have somehow SIGNIFICANTLY (I repeat the key word: significantly) different in the game. If you think even in BS:M there were at least 3 different “levels” for BB representation: Iowa/Yamato on the top, New York/Fuso, and the “old” US/UK battleships (e.g. on the map Suriago Strait).
So what else can be brought into the game to create reasonable variety from the gameplay (either strategic or action) point of view? Not a lot I believe.

I do understand that for WWII hard core fans it is always important to have ships represented correctly, they should look correctly, etc… However this is still a game. Adding more models is a huge job and I’d rather really have that resource put into a map editor or some “interface” so community modders can develop their own units in their free time… DEV time is very precious and they should focus on things that can deliver value.

Just an outlook to another product: my favourite comparison Empire: Total War advertises a “Special Units Pack” on STEAM. It says if you buy this extra ($10 extra over the game) you get some special units that can turn the tide of the battles in single player missions. This is a great idea – but only to collect revenue for the publisher… I wouldn’t pay extra for this. Neither for DLC that has nothing more than just some extra units – unless it’s free. But in that later case I will ask: why not spend the time on things that can really improve the game and replayability?

Arrow
19th Jan 2009, 18:13
I might draw some negative sympathy here, but my opinion is that introducing more differentiation in BB ship classes won’t really help the game a lot.
Let me explain.
Different unit types are only meaningful for me in a game if they represent something different in their performance. I personally(!) do not mind having the same type of ships look exactly the same if they perform the same way as well.
Therefore for BS:P to introduce a new BB class it would require to introduce a new performance model. The armor/speed/firepower combination should have somehow SIGNIFICANTLY (I repeat the key word: significantly) different in the game. If you think even in BS:M there were at least 3 different “levels” for BB representation: Iowa/Yamato on the top, New York/Fuso, and the “old” US/UK battleships (e.g. on the map Suriago Strait).
So what else can be brought into the game to create reasonable variety from the gameplay (either strategic or action) point of view? Not a lot I believe.

I do understand that for WWII hard core fans it is always important to have ships represented correctly, they should look correctly, etc… However this is still a game. Adding more models is a huge job and I’d rather really have that resource put into a map editor or some “interface” so community modders can develop their own units in their free time… DEV time is very precious and they should focus on things that can deliver value.

Just an outlook to another product: my favourite comparison Empire: Total War advertises a “Special Units Pack” on STEAM. It says if you buy this extra ($10 extra over the game) you get some special units that can turn the tide of the battles in single player missions. This is a great idea – but only to collect revenue for the publisher… I wouldn’t pay extra for this. Neither for DLC that has nothing more than just some extra units – unless it’s free. But in that later case I will ask: why not spend the time on things that can really improve the game and replayability?

Quoted for truth. I can't imagine a point in having Tenryū, Kuma, Nagara, Yūbari, and Sendai all as different classes since they're all pretty much identical anyway

Polarshark
19th Jan 2009, 21:15
Heck, Instead of putting more pressure on the Dev's, they could release SDK's for the game, so we can make the ships ourselves, since releasing the SDK doesn't cost as much as delaying the game further to fulfill more requests.

Note
SDK = Software Development Kit (contains all the tools used to model/alter stuff in the game)
Maybe this would give birth to BS:P Modding community.. I'd gladly help putting in more ships, maps etc etc for the game, as long as the tools needed to do that is provided.

im with walter

best idea or map editor which is also the most wanted

David603
20th Jan 2009, 14:33
Quoted for truth. I can't imagine a point in having Tenryū, Kuma, Nagara, Yūbari, and Sendai all as different classes since they're all pretty much identical anyway
That said, a couple of these classes could be made by slightly altering the existing Kuma class and it wouldn't involve much effort.

Jevon
19th Jan 2010, 01:57
Normally I would agree with everyone else that's posted here, but
this game already has two different ship models from the 1st pearl harbor mission that look just fine. (one is a knife-edged bow with 3 turrets, 3 guns each, that looks similar to colorado class, tenessee class, etc., the other is a rounded bow with 3 turrets, 3 guns each, that looks similar to the penn. class, nevada class, etc.) All that would need to be done (excuse me if i'm wrong here) is to allow the player to use these two types of ship (even if the two types stand for 4 different classes that look alike). I mean why would they include a working model in the game if you can't goddamn use it?! :mad2: