Page 1 of 5 12345 Last

Thread: New Suggetions For Pacific

New Suggetions For Pacific

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19

    Exclamation New Suggetions For Pacific

    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

  2. #2

    Thumbs Down Where do these people keep coming from?

    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.

  3. #3

    Smile

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally Posted by MrPink45
    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"?

  7. #7

    Smile

    erm Arrow, AA and Flak are almost redundant

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19

    Lightbulb Calm down there chief

    Originally Posted by Arrow
    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...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    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.

  11. #11

    Smile

    Originally Posted by MrPink45

    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* 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

  12. #12

    Rolleyes Check your feelings at the Door

    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.


    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 . 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)
    In Game:
    -=)CSF(=-bttleshpman

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by MrPink45
    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...


    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by Some Guy
    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

  16. #16
    You can already fly above flak in Midway. You just have to be at the very top.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by battleshipman
    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.




    Just make sure you set it to water on your airfield, we wouldn't want it to sink . 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...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    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.

  19. #19
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by Red October
    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...

  22. #22
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    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.

  23. #23
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Originally Posted by MrPink45
    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

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    19
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    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...

  25. #25
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Originally Posted by MrPink45
    haha nice cover-up there...
    Here I come to save the day!!!!


Page 1 of 5 12345 Last