Thread: More Historical/Technical Errors

More Historical/Technical Errors

  1. #51
    [QUOTE=Muddled Muppet;614137]

    Seriously tho, there HAS been a 'trainspotting' element in some of these threads, i posted a cartoon (see 'Kamikaze's, another take') on this board, first one i ever done on a PC and was kinda chuffed, yet it got loads of comments about detail/accuracy of plane etc etc, IN A CARTOON!!!!!!

    QUOTE]

    Heh, just be glad nobody commented that the number of teeth on the warhawk in your cartoon was wrong...........................

  2. #52
    He'd been to the dentist

  3. #53
    Originally Posted by Muddled Muppet
    Seriously tho, there HAS been a 'trainspotting' element in some of these threads, i posted a cartoon (see 'Kamikaze's, another take') on this board, first one i ever done on a PC and was kinda chuffed, yet it got loads of comments about detail/accuracy of plane etc etc, IN A CARTOON!!!!!!
    I commented on a P40 Kittyhawk carrying a torpedo and attacking a ship.

    That, to me, is like seeing a WW2 cartoon with US soldiers wearing characteristic German helmets and firing laser guns at passing Tie fighters. It does not matter that it's "only a cartoon" (unless the very idea is to make a joke about lasers etc. )

    Having said that I can live with most of the abstractions and simplifications in this game....

  4. #54
    you think an inaccuracy that could ONLY be picked up on by someone with an above average level of knowledge to say the least is the same as crossing the reality/fantasy divide and leaping into a whole new space/time continuum?

    that's either sarcasm or wit right?

  5. #55
    Originally Posted by Muddled Muppet
    you think an inaccuracy that could ONLY be picked up on by someone with an above average level of knowledge to say the least is the same as crossing the reality/fantasy divide and leaping into a whole new space/time continuum?
    Depends on a target audience mate

    I am sure inaccuracy as you call it would be perfectly OK for, say, my mother

    However, VERY SOON (when the full game is released) absolutely everyone on this board will know full well that Kittys cannot carry a torpedo and are strictly land based fighters You don't need to be nit picking grognard lunatic for that.

  6. #56
    yes th etarget audience is true....

    however, we all know that people in reality aren't yellow with three hands, doesn't stop people liking the simpsons,

    I still can't believe that people expect a cartoon to be of the same historical accuracy as an 18 month developed game, which would also need to be as accurate as an academic thesis.

    and the plane in question, as i have stated before, is a copy of the one at the very top of this page, clearly being shown in a sea battle, in this game. This game that the cartoon is referring too.

    and would it be nit-picking if i pointed out that not EVERYONE on this board would know the difference? clearly i dont, and i am sure there are others too.

    to conclude i dodnt say you would need to be a nitpicking grognard to KNOW the difference, it is into which medium you apply that knowledge and expect others to adhere to.
    most reasonable people can tell the difference between something that invites an expectation of detail/accuracy and hence invites criticism on it's failure to deliver, and those media that are based on only a general outline, be it for the sake of a joke, story, film, or 'toon, and do not purport to the lofty heights of academia.

  7. #57
    Originally Posted by Samsonov
    Depends on a target audience mate

    I am sure inaccuracy as you call it would be perfectly OK for, say, my mother

    However, VERY SOON (when the full game is released) absolutely everyone on this board will know full well that Kittys cannot carry a torpedo and are strictly land based fighters You don't need to be nit picking grognard lunatic for that.
    i just realised, not only do you nit pick my 'toon but now my choice of words as well??

    in what way does the word inaccuracy require the 'as you call it' addendum?

    inaccuracy n. , pl. -cies . The quality or condition of being inaccurate. An instance of being inaccurate; an error.

  8. #58
    Originally Posted by Muddled Muppet
    Dark Decimator i think i see where you are coming from, but i reckon you should, for your own benifit, develop a 'willing suspension of disbelief'.

    This is what enables us all to see a few props on a stage yet still enjoy the play, see a watercolour painting and fill in our own details to see the beauty, or watch a film without worrying if the Orcs are indeed a true representation of Toilkens imagination.

    Me and my wife are both nurses, yet i hate watching any kind of medical based comedy or drama cos she HAS to nitpick every diagnosis or medication regime, when to me what is important is the story.

    At the end of the day it's me who will get the most enjoyment

    I suppose an alternative is to not play WWII based games unless you are certain the research is in depth enough, or seek a living helping games producers?

    I reckon the suspension of disbelief is the best bet
    Don't get me wrong...I enjoy the game! It's just that I like to put the info out there for future reference.

  9. #59
    Originally Posted by Samsonov
    I commented on a P40 Kittyhawk carrying a torpedo and attacking a ship.
    the plane was a Warhawk, only the british ones were called Kittyhawk, don't nit-pick unless you have your facts right
    Sincerity is the key to life, once you can fake that you’ve got it made

  10. #60
    Originally Posted by Samsonov
    Depends on a target audience mate

    I am sure inaccuracy as you call it would be perfectly OK for, say, my mother

    However, VERY SOON (when the full game is released) absolutely everyone on this board will know full well that Kittys cannot carry a torpedo and are strictly land based fighters You don't need to be nit picking grognard lunatic for that.

    Except for in "Operation Torch" where Kittyhawks were launched from carriers...

  11. #61
    Originally Posted by princecaspian4
    the plane was a Warhawk, only the british ones were called Kittyhawk, don't nit-pick unless you have your facts right
    Very true!

  12. #62
    Originally Posted by princecaspian4
    the plane was a Warhawk, only the british ones were called Kittyhawk, don't nit-pick unless you have your facts right
    Yes, well what can I say I was brought up on British aviation literature

  13. #63
    Originally Posted by Dark Decimator
    Except for in "Operation Torch" where Kittyhawks were launched from carriers...
    LOL and people think I am nitpicking

    During Torch they were never supposed to land on the carrier right? They were just delivered to landbases so that hardly constitutes full fledged naval operation.

    If we consider "naval transport & delivery with carrier take off" then many army aircraft flew off the carrier - once (never to return).

    This is getting more ridicolous by the minute..... the thread started as irony vs. "hisroric realism club" and by page two we have members of "history realism club" nitpicking on each other

  14. #64
    Maybe the lesson learnt is to be VERY careful of facts before nit-picking on others, or maybe, just maybe, we can all stop nit picking?

  15. #65
    Originally Posted by Alymon
    I have to admit, that was one of the best responses I've read in a long time, even if it was unneccessary or sarcastic.

    Everybody talks about what they would've done better, or what the devs did wrong.

    Big f-ing deal if there are some inaccuracies. Would you rather they spent more time on historical research or on gameplay and mechanics research?

    Personally, I'd rather the game was close to historically accurate but spot on for gameplay and mechanics, than the game was 100% accurate but a piece of crap to play.

    You want historical accuracy, go play one of the games released by the history channel. They suck for gameplay, but they are accurate.

    You want an excellent gameplay experience, forget the historical inaccuracies and focus on things that really make a game great.
    Truely, my only complaint is the requirement for line of sight to attack an enemy vessel. As long as we have radar contact, we should be able to target it.

  16. #66
    I think that BB's gun range is too short, only 1,0 km!! For me the best solution would be to increase to the distance at least 2, 0 km, because all the enemy must be "afraid" to be hitten by BB at long distance..

    Secondly IMHO the torpedoes ar too slow and don't have a "minum distance to explode".. at least 100 meters.. Is not possible that a sub that collide to a DD and fire 5 torpedoes can sunk the DD...

    p.s. Sorry for english i'm italian

  17. #67
    Originally Posted by Tripplex
    I think that BB's gun range is too short, only 1,0 km!! For me the best solution would be to increase to the distance at least 2, 0 km, because all the enemy must be "afraid" to be hitten by BB at long distance..

    Secondly IMHO the torpedoes ar too slow and don't have a "minum distance to explode".. at least 100 meters.. Is not possible that a sub that collide to a DD and fire 5 torpedoes can sunk the DD...

    p.s. Sorry for english i'm italian
    Yep. A fast destroyer can outrun a torpedo. That just isn't anywhere near accurate. A destroyer cannot attain 40kts, (more accuate speed is 35 kts). Torpedoes could do up to 43 knots. You have to out maneuver them. You cannot out-run them.

    1 torpedo, well placed, can sink a DD. 5 torps should about destroy the ship.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,274

    May the nitpicking continue

    Originally Posted by Tripplex
    I think that BB's gun range is too short, only 1,0 km!! For me the best solution would be to increase to the distance at least 2, 0 km, because all the enemy must be "afraid" to be hitten by BB at long distance..

    Secondly IMHO the torpedoes ar too slow and don't have a "minum distance to explode".. at least 100 meters.. Is not possible that a sub that collide to a DD and fire 5 torpedoes can sunk the DD...

    p.s. Sorry for english i'm italian
    The range for a BB is 1.5 miles which is longer than 2km!
    Sorry, more nitpicking

  19. #69
    mybee they should make it so you have to turn the carrier into the wind so you can launch planes

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2

    Some inaccuracies ok, others not

    Unfortunately I have not been able to play the demo yet, since I have a pc and I have not yet heard when it is being released. But after reviewing some of the details about the ships on the webpage and reading through this thread, here are some of my opinions:

    1. I don't really care if all the people on deck look alike, just the fact that the devs put them there is good enough. It adds an extra detail without going over the top or slowing the game down.

    2. I could care less about the interior of the ships. Being a Naval Architect, I deal with that stuff at work, I sure don't feel like messing around with or even looking at it during a game.

    3. Range of guns: The shorter ranges make for much more exciting game play since everything is moving at a quicker pace, but a long range gun duel between battleships (up to 20 miles) would be fun. If the speeds in the game were correct, it would not take much time for two ships to close this range.

    4. As mentioned above, the speeds of these ships is appalling. This is one of my two major complaints. Japanese and American submarines could not reach 30 knots surfaced and 15 submerged, try 20 at the most surfaced and 10 submerged - especially early in the war. The KGV class would cruise at 20, but they could make it to 30 if pushed hard. The British and American BBs could make over 20 kts during WWI. The Yorktown class could go up to 32 kts while the game has it listed at 20. The destroyer speeds are good, and at least the Yamato was somewhat close at 25 (reality was 27).

    5. Speaking of the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, the ship is wrong. There are two too many 6.1 inch guns midships and not enough 5 inch guns. The only 6.1 inch guns were located in triple turrets fore and aft of the superstructure.

    With all this said I am still very excited to play this game, I just needed to get this off my chest. Have a good one.

  21. #71
    Originally Posted by opie60
    Unfortunately I have not been able to play the demo yet, since I have a pc and I have not yet heard when it is being released. But after reviewing some of the details about the ships on the webpage and reading through this thread, here are some of my opinions:

    1. I don't really care if all the people on deck look alike, just the fact that the devs put them there is good enough. It adds an extra detail without going over the top or slowing the game down.

    2. I could care less about the interior of the ships. Being a Naval Architect, I deal with that stuff at work, I sure don't feel like messing around with or even looking at it during a game.

    3. Range of guns: The shorter ranges make for much more exciting game play since everything is moving at a quicker pace, but a long range gun duel between battleships (up to 20 miles) would be fun. If the speeds in the game were correct, it would not take much time for two ships to close this range.

    4. As mentioned above, the speeds of these ships is appalling. This is one of my two major complaints. Japanese and American submarines could not reach 30 knots surfaced and 15 submerged, try 20 at the most surfaced and 10 submerged - especially early in the war. The KGV class would cruise at 20, but they could make it to 30 if pushed hard. The British and American BBs could make over 20 kts during WWI. The Yorktown class could go up to 32 kts while the game has it listed at 20. The destroyer speeds are good, and at least the Yamato was somewhat close at 25 (reality was 27).

    5. Speaking of the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, the ship is wrong. There are two too many 6.1 inch guns midships and not enough 5 inch guns. The only 6.1 inch guns were located in triple turrets fore and aft of the superstructure.

    With all this said I am still very excited to play this game, I just needed to get this off my chest. Have a good one.
    Thanks for another constructive opinion mate! Always good to read something worthwhile, rather than an attempt at offending other posters. I don't know alot about the ships, so that was an interesting read!

  22. #72
    Originally Posted by opie60
    5. Speaking of the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, the ship is wrong. There are two too many 6.1 inch guns midships and not enough 5 inch guns. The only 6.1 inch guns were located in triple turrets fore and aft of the superstructure.
    Yamato was built with the setup seen ingame. After Midway, it was refitted to remove the Waist 6.1" turrets and beef up the AA armament to the levels you're thinking of.

    It's also worth noting that the Northamptons had a Torpedo battery. (:

    Furthermore, the 5"/38 guns on the US Carriers were Dual-purpose, not dedicated AA. Likewise, the Japanese carriers retained modest self defense armaments.

    I could rattle off a bunch of other stuff, but given the reactions elsewhere in this thread, I don't see much a point to it.

    The game is fun and enjoyable the way it is, but keeping things a bit more accurate would've have hurt much, nor taken much effort to implement.

    That being said, should Eidos want a Naval consultant for future patches/games, I'd be willing to do it for free. :P

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11

    Smile BB Gun range

    Andy3536,

    You said "The range for a BB is 1.5 miles which is longer than 2km!".

    Actually it's more like 25 miles.




    Yamato's nine main guns, mounted in three turrets, were the largest to ever crown a warship. They fired shells 18 inches in diameter, and each armor-piercing shell weighed as much as a small car. They also could strike at an unprecedented range of 25 miles. Ironically, while designed to sink enemy battleships, they were never tested against one. Yamato fought Allied ships only once, in the Battle of Samar Gulf, where she sank one American escort carrier and one destroyer. For her final mission, the Imperial Navy swapped out some armor-piercing projectiles for incendiary, anti-aircraft shells, but Yamato's awesome guns were still ill equipped for aerial warfare.

  24. #74
    i think its easy when moving over from flight sims like il2 ( where i often spend 30 minutes enroute and then get shot down) to wonder about inacuracies in an arcadish game.

    for me the only game breaking thing is the torps destroying the harbour, including that means you may aswell have giant robots and laser eyes.

    fuel tanks, wrong aircraft types, scaled down ranges, theyre no big deal.

    but not everyone thinks its great to spawn and die, spawn and die.
    some ppl would like the option to spend a few minutes looking for the enemy. perhpas engage beyond visual range, put scout planes to a actuall use.

    now its easy for the developers to meet both parties, how ? one large map, spawn with set forces, miles apart. let aircraft go hunting for each others ships. the ppl playing the map are playing it because they want to add a little more strategy to it.
    the ones who want the fist fight from the start, they play a different map. it really cant take that long to make a single large map, hell ill pay for the download.

    i would be happy to spend 15 minutes sending planes around the map just to find the enemy, before starting my attack, even making them come home the long way to mislead the enemy into thinking im south of him, and not east.
    or worse still seeing a big group comming at my carrier while all my forces are out looking for his. me and many others would find this fun
    in the same way a lot of ppl enjoy the instant action.

    all we need is 1 map, you lot are already taking care off with all maps being instant fights, we simply would enjoy 1 map with a little more strategy to it. it doesnt even require a change in gameplay mechanics

    the other thing that makes me laugh is the complaints about so called underpowered planes, they sent 500 after the yamamoto not 9. planes in the pacific were there in a supporting role. same as the swordfish that went after the bismark, they only slowed it down so it could be killed. they didnt sink it.
    aircraft balance in game is fine.

    not eevryone likes the same thing, GOW deathmatch is to me utter rubbish. CO-OP is amazing. see how that game gives you both ??
    now all we need is a map and this game will also offer the same, just one map where strategy and tactics can be deployed.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,274
    Originally Posted by Scotj
    Andy3536,

    You said "The range for a BB is 1.5 miles which is longer than 2km!".

    Actually it's more like 25 miles.




    Yamato's nine main guns, mounted in three turrets, were the largest to ever crown a warship. They fired shells 18 inches in diameter, and each armor-piercing shell weighed as much as a small car. They also could strike at an unprecedented range of 25 miles. Ironically, while designed to sink enemy battleships, they were never tested against one. Yamato fought Allied ships only once, in the Battle of Samar Gulf, where she sank one American escort carrier and one destroyer. For her final mission, the Imperial Navy swapped out some armor-piercing projectiles for incendiary, anti-aircraft shells, but Yamato's awesome guns were still ill equipped for aerial warfare.

    Not in real life plonker, in the game!

Page 3 of 4 First First 1234 Last

Similar Threads

  1. Fog, Colored Light, Waether
    By YohnY in forum Thief - Dromed Designers Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th Apr 2005, 06:01
  2. Error 1305 ??
    By Rippp in forum Shellshock Nam '67 - Technical Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th Sep 2004, 11:08
  3. Tuttocomb's Tomb bug won't let me into water at beginning!
    By nayr in forum Thief - Missions Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 8th Sep 2004, 14:51
  4. BloodRayne Goes Hollywood
    By Lara Croft Online in forum Members Lounge (formerly Eidos Community Chat)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th Sep 2003, 01:23
  5. I am very unhappy.
    By kit in forum Tomb Raider 1 - 6 - Gaming Help Center
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10th Sep 2002, 14:37