Thread: 13. What would you like to see in the BSM sequel Single Player Campaign?

13. What would you like to see in the BSM sequel Single Player Campaign?

  1. #1
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006

    13. What would you like to see in the BSM sequel Single Player Campaign?

    Lets get those good ideas.

  2. #2
    Let me go play it and see.

    I'm not sure what you could add to it specifically, but it needs something to appeal to me a whole lot more. The fixed course story line and fixed scenarios aren't why I bought the game. I've never even finished the main missions, or the challenge missions, because I find the MP games a whole lot more interesting.

    Maybe a more open SP story line, like a strategic campaign that has me managing main bases and deploying fleet/air elements to sea areas and such (like a computer version of Axis & Allies) and then fighting out the resulting battles, with the results giving control of the sea areas and land areas in that sea area, allowing me to set up more advanced main bases, and continue the process? I would play that.

    And how about a split screen co-op version of the SP or MP maps so my son and I can both play it against the computer?

  3. #3
    Okay, I know that mortal and Sith will have more of a voice than me on this, but we need a non-scripted campaign! Having it like Ace Combat Zero where the player could chose what side he wanted to fight for and affect how the campain ends. Having a campaing like that would definately add a lot to the single player. Players would be able to play as the same country many times before they exhaust every snecario they could come up with.

    In terms of AI which was dsicussed in the other thread, it needs to be fixed. Any smart commander wouldn't stay on course if a ship was doing fall away shots. But yet, if you engage with a destroyer with the same health as you, what's up with them always killing you in one freakin shot? That always bugged me. It's like it has magic guns that point right at your powder magazine. I just didn't like how stupid, yet good the IA was on veteran, and just plain stupid on normal and easy!

    Um... that's all I can really think of I guess.

    EDIT: Good idea Scipio. This game needs splitscreen and system link.

  4. #4
    I want a dual campaign. Lets see the action, in depth, from all sides.

    The missions need to be longer, more detailed, and the amount of units under direct player control need to be increased.

    As I said in a previous thread, lets eliminate "point stacking" by making enemy units finite.

    The idea in the first game of starting small and working up (pt boat to destroyer to cruiser, et cetera) was a good one, but completely underdeveloped - lets work our way up to fleet control, then add to that, and still have a lot of missions to play - it could almost be Star Trek Legacy style, where you purchase the units you want to add to your fleet in between missions, and keep this fleet growing and intact as the game goes on. This would give the player a sense of individuality and control, and could greatly increase the odds of unpredictability.

    As for individual missions, lets have the best. I want a Sink The Bismark mission (is it to much to ask for Johnny Horton's classic tune as background music? Probably )

    Lets have a nice contingent of Wolfpack missions. The battle for control in the Atlantic had some great diversity to work with.

    Basically, lets just expand it. Give us more units, more control, larger battles. (Mid mission save? Maybe.) I love MP but SP is equally important to me. I played every mission in BSM at least ten times, going for high scores, making sure I got the gold - but there was definitely room for improvement

  5. #5
    An Allies and Axis campaign.
    Example with the Pacific: we'd have the majority US forces, a scenerio with the British Force Z, a scenerio with Aussie Cruisers involved. Marjoity IJN side, later in the war stopping a Japan bound german U-boat.

    Example with the Atlantic: Majority British forces, a scenerio with Canadian Corvette Convoy Escort, a scenerio with British and Norwegian forces, a scenerio with US East Coast forces. A Majority German Forces, some scenerios with Italian and French Navies.

    Keep Veteran and Challenges HARD! no Truks.

    Improve on the Scoring. Put a finite number of planes or only include a finite number of points scorable for planes.

    An Ability to play it Co-op would be fantastic and add to replayability.

  6. #6
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Seems like everyone wants a campaign played from both sides which I am in agreement. The campaigns also need to be just a tad bit longer. A dynamic or at least some random missions are needed to help extend the life of the game.

    A PS3 version is sorely needed.

  7. #7
    Seems like everyone wants a campaign played from both sides which I am in agreement. The campaigns also need to be just a tad bit longer. A dynamic or at least some random missions are needed to help extend the life of the game.
    totaly agree, Dynamic is very important and a campaign that plays both axis and allies would be great. It doesnt even have to follow the same story.

  8. #8
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    No, but I would like to see the final big battle that ends the characters story arc to be the same battle.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Xbox 360

    I also haven't put too much stock in the single player campaign.

    My personal situation has my gaming time limited, therefore I spend as much of it as I can online, where I find the matches more challenging, unpredictable, and most importantly, more FUN.

    That being said I know thats not the only voice for fans of BS:M.

    While I get the intention of the storyline...seeing the war through an individual's eyes, I don't think it ended up being as compelling as was intended.

    An idea I was thinking about for the single player campaign puts the player as Admiral and sets the Theater somewhat like a game of Risk. Where the missions are chosen by the Admiral, but the enemy strength would need to be weakened before major battles could be won. Example being that the "The Battle of Truk" could not be the first mission but something that could only be attempted after weakening the rest of the Japanese forces. Meanwhile your forces are limited... if you lose a particular carrier, it's gone.

    And if you put the whole fleet as one unit (all eggs in one basket) than other areas are left vulnerable to attack. This way part of the game is taking over and holding areas while another major part is finding and destroying the enemy fleet (in open water or near bases or ports).

    It's obviously not fleshed out but the core of the idea is there.

  10. #10
    I agree with the main lines here, the two fundamental elements I see:
    1. Have a campaign from all fighting sides. (alternatively if for whatever reason there can only be one campaign at least provide with an opportunity to try the other side at least through a good skirmish mode

    2. The campaign has to be more detailed and long. Simple terms the amount of time it requires to complete should be significantly increased.

    There is a major favorite theme I wish to repeat: without deciding on some key basic characteristic of the "future BS:M2" it is very hard to comment on these detailed questions. Why?
    If the future is to strengthen the action element all we need is a few more missions with more random and "intelligent" AI for the single player campaign to be successful.
    If the point is to enrich the strategy element then there is a need for a different campaign which has much more units to control, probably larger maps and more importantly: more complicated objectives and challenging situations. In this case fewer "missions" could be enough since the replay value of such a missions are much higher.

    Last: there is the "theme" of having to have a storyline that brings the missions together through some "main" character or characters. Although this is something very trendy in these days I'm not sure if this is absolutely essential even is single player. There could be many other ways to create a frame around the missions - some may even require less development efforts so the saved time could be put to build better maps or AI.

  11. #11
    I would suggest having a campaign possible that extends in time past any one encounter or battle, in real life naval strategy and tactics was an onling extension of the political goals of the home country ....power projected by naval forces that could not be expressed in other ways, (read Mahon for more on that)....and at the time, sea transport was the heart of international travel and trade and apex model for power for nations of that time was an "empire" based on trade and supported by naval and later by naval AND air power.

    So the sequel could focus on this wider picture, otherwise naval gaming ends up being repeated slugfests with a merely local focus. Naval gaming over the centuries that it has developed has struggled with how to balance to focus of it all to encompass both tactics AND strategy and over time sophisticated Naval gaming has taken into account the econmy of the home countries of the fleets, the complex dynamics of logistics as well as the difficulties of command and control (signal flags, semaphore, morse, radio, radar), command strengths and weaknesses (Admiralty methods and tradditoins in the UK, Naval War College and Annapolis politics in the USA, remnants of the High Seas doctrines, and struggles between the services in the Kriegsmarine, the difficulties of creating an entire nodern navy for the Italian fleet, the inter service rivalries and clan affiliations of the services hampering the Imperial Japanese Fleet, and so on).....and then the vargies of the fog of war etc.....

    all these make a larger campaign difficult to implement within a game environment but make such a game much more interesting and increased replay value tremendously. And the relation of the game to the units, how you move and control them, what role the gamer has, as an overall command such as Admiral or "God" in the game, or team playing, or playing from multiple roles as in the BSM 1...all these need to be considered.

    But i would love to see campaigns that extend beyond theatres, not just the Paicifc or Atlantic, but global this was the second global naval war, and due to extreme limitations of communcations and logistics (early crystal radios and coal powered ships) in WWI, WWII was by far the most fluid and wide ranging war in terms of consequences and effects on the overall picture of individual battles and campaigns...and I would love to see this game engine, which has the potential and the engine finally I feel best of any I have seen, to truely achieve the capablities of excellence in naval gaming that it can reach.

    It will take work and some very creative framing of the game experience, but I think it can be done, and I woudl urge therefore not only campaigns but multiple and linked theaters, as the naval war was linked and effected by the ongoing events across the world during this era. The decision to focus on the Atlantic at the outset of US naval participation, at the expense of the remaining units in the Pacific created that particular environment in the Pacific in which the combined US, British and Dutch forces were annialiated, and the US clung to the hold it had on Pearl, and other places, even though the forces existed elsewhere in both the US and other Allied forces to change all of that, that did not come until after the success in Europe and the advent of the immense US naval construction was able to enter the Pacific Theatre. Simlar far reaching effects of strategy and decision making at the highest levels affected the naval engagements and campaigns that occured and which could be included in the sequel. I would urge that these decisoins be part of the gaming, so that it is not just 'bring on your forces and slug away at the enemy" but a deeper and wider view and experience. Making construction of new units and new classes possible as is done in other game genres, within the overall game storyline would add much to the realism and play experience. We used to include a budget of funds that could be spent on naval development and research, construciton of more untits of existing classes, or new ones, repair and base maintennce, as well as provisioning and logistics, all had to be balanced by Fleet Command, and what was possible was always dependent on what was available or what was planned or in the pipeline.

    So it could be a much more comprehensive experience in many ways and I would encourage that. It would take a longer and higher learning curve, and there could be difficluty levels, but with modern software and game code and engines that is all within reach now.

  12. #12
    Three things i think are essential.

    Replayabilty. - a non linear campaign to allow new expereinces and tactical challanges

    Variety. -replay the campaign using different ships/planes

    Modability. - tools to change and enhance the SP Camp (maybe at a later date with mod tools)

    PS> Emphasis on Gameplay not eye candy.