Demo comments.....

[Samsonov]

Wow, pretty cool game, when you manage to find decent group of players.... otherwise it's disconnect-drop-high ping fest.

I come from the world of hard core grognard wargames, so I expected regular run of the mill shallow braindead RTS crap here, but am very pleasantly surprised - BSM appears to be fine mix between acessible and quite realistic, and to get good results you gotta use real world WW2 tactics.

My criticisms:

- As pretty much everyone agrees - GameSpy server browser SUCKS big time, as does anything related to GameSpy.

- It appears that subs can attack land based installations (ports) with *torpedos*. This is just annoying (also totally unrealistic, but above else annoying to see). Please tell me I am wrong on this?

- When surface units engage other surface units at "long range" they elevate their guns ridicolously high, and appear to be shooting like howitzers or mortars, using 70% degree - this is aesthetically ugly and also annoying. Elementary physics teaches us that 45% give or take a few % is the angle for longest distance shots, and it would also look much better in the game.

- When the opposing loser disconnects - you lose the game. Obviously this is stupid, but I'd also like to see AI take over the side (hopefully it works like that in full game).

- Releasing the demo for a game relatively complex as this, without a PDF manual, was a huge mistake.

- How do you GIVE units to your buddy?

- AA guns should be able to hurt subs - it is my impression they don't?

- I'd love ships to sink slower, also some sort of "kill camera" so you can watch your victim sink and enjoy the sight.

- Scoring, where you get points only for stuff you kill directly, is utterly retarded.

- Battle recorder is a MUST for this game.

BTW this is based on the PC demo but I think most comments are valid for X360 version as well.

Finally, I post above criticisms because I started to care about the game and think it can be great, it's already very good (say 8/10), but I'd love to see it become great :thumbsup:

[imnotcanadian]

I agree with you on everything in here. To give units,I believe you select unit and use mouse button 3 (clicking on the scroller for me). You cant be manning the unit you are about to give to somebody.

[Memnoch]

- It appears that subs can attack land based installations (ports) with *torpedos*. This is just annoying (also totally unrealistic, but above else annoying to see). Please tell me I am wrong on this?

You are wrong.

The shipyards foundation is under water. If the foundation gets torpedoed, the shipyard will crumble. How is that not realistic? And it's not like you do a lot of damage.

[Samsonov]

You are wrong.

The shipyards foundation is under water. If the foundation gets torpedoed, the shipyard will crumble. How is that not realistic? And it's not like you do a lot of damage.

LOL!! That's not realistic because it never happened :lol:

[Memnoch]

Doesn't matter. It CAN happen.

You want only things that did happen, watch the History Channel, and stay away from my game.

[NuclearDruid]

Doesn't matter. It CAN happen.

You want only things that did happen, watch the History Channel, and stay away from my game.

Talk about some major unnecessary hostility.

[Memnoch]

I'm just tired of people grasping at straws trying to bash this game. :(

[NuclearDruid]

I'm just tired of people grasping at straws trying to bash this game. :(

Bashing? That isn't bashing that he is doing. If you can't handle a little criticism, that could be a problem =p

[Samsonov]

I'm just tired of people grasping at straws trying to bash this game. :(

It's not bashing. I have kids, wife, busy life + half a dozen games on the current playlist - if I don't think BSM has potential to become excellent game (and get on my private playlist) I would not even bother to register on this forum :cool:

Still I find some things irritating, not working well (server browser?) or could use some improvement.

I was pleasantly surprised to see real world tactics work in this game, despite some necessary simplifications. Well, subs torpedoing ports was never real world tactic, and should not work regardless of any simplifications IMO.

[Rafterman82]

im with the other guy, i dont really care if it happened or not, if the foundations are underwater and can be torpedoed in real life then they should in the game, saying dont put it in because in never happened is just silly, dont make a WWIII game because it hasnt happened yet, if you can prove to me that you cant inflict damage on a shipyard under the waterline i will retract my statement

[I3laze]

I see where this is going. Noob tactics with subs****

[Samsonov]

im with the other guy, i dont really care if it happened or not, if the foundations are underwater and can be torpedoed in real life then they should in the game, saying dont put it in because in never happened is just silly, dont make a WWIII game because it hasnt happened yet, if you can prove to me that you cant inflict damage on a shipyard under the waterline i will retract my statement

LOL have you ever seen a real shipyard or port?

BTW real torpedos are constructed to explode *below* the ship. In short - coastal instalations were NEVER EVER attacked by submarine torpedos, and there is no reason why they should be in this game.

WW3 argument is beside the point, as this is WW2 game. I am pretty sure torpedos won't be used against coastal installations in WW3 neither, simply because it's stupid, pointless, can't inflict any damage to the target, and torpedos aren't designed to work that way.

[andy3536]

LOL have you ever seen a real shipyard or port?

BTW real torpedos are constructed to explode *below* the ship. In short - coastal instalations were NEVER EVER attacked by submarine torpedos, and there is no reason why they should be in this game.

WW3 argument is beside the point, as this is WW2 game. I am pretty sure torpedos won't be used against coastal installations in WW3 neither, simply because it's stupid, pointless, can't inflict any damage to the target, and torpedos aren't designed to work that way.

Torpedoes from world war 2 are desighned to explode on impact it is only modern torpedoes that explode beneath a ships keel! Which is why in real life they could not make a bow shot because the torp would hit on the edge and miss the detonator!

[Samsonov]

Torpedoes from world war 2 are desighned to explode on impact it is only modern torpedoes that explode beneath a ships keel! Which is why in real life they could not make a bow shot because the torp would hit on the edge and miss the detonator!

Ah but they were not. They used influence (ie magnetic ie contact-less) fuses initially at start of WW2, after those malfunctioned, contact fuses were used, but after some tests and improvements it was back to magnetic (influence, contact-less) fuses.

More can be found here:
http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

and here (US torpedos):
http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/torpedo_problems.htm

For those really interested in naval weapons I highly recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Weapons-World-War-Two/dp/0851779247/sr=8-8/qid=1169999721/ref=sr_1_8/104-9723537-9042368?ie=UTF8&s=books

Quoting directly from page 260 (on German torpedos):
"....magnetic pistols (pistols=fuses in this case) were withdrawn in early 1940 (after Norwegian campaign) and did not reappear until late 1943." Notes in brackets are mine. SO, magnetic fuses were used before Norwegian campaign and later in 43 + later.

Now sorry for boring everyone to death :scratch: :nut: I don't expect this game to go into heavy detail with torpedo fuse modelling, I just ask FOR GOD'S SAKE, to stop n00bish, gamey technique of subs attacking ports/yards with torps that's all :whistle:

[antiSniper07]

But not about the torpedos. Your wrong to think any kind of historical reference is going to change Memnoch and Raftermans mind. Their seeing this from a different perspective then you.

They just want to win, they have probably been getting spanked and thought, "Wow, I can just send a couple Subs to blow up their shipyard untouched".

They just don't know it won't work :rasp:

Me and my buddy Dcndnts were Undefeated all day yesterday. Subs are short work for the AirForce :). Especially one motionless in front of my Shipyard. :D

[darklord212]

Yeah some of the features u ask for a little overboard liek the gun angle if u want to play a realistic gunboat game go buy destroyer commmand and a camera kill would be nice but if u watch the ship u killed sink, another might be firing u or torping u.

[Samsonov]

I am not asking for too much realism. I understand the design principles behind this game and in general I am impressed with the fun/realism blend they achieved.

However..... subs torpedoing ports is just a tad bit too much for my taste.... :scratch: also opens door to all sorts of gamey techniques and exploits.

Having normal gun elevation would not change the mechanics of the game, nor the outcome, it's purely aesthetic remark - guns elevated too high are ugly and unlike anything people might have seen on TV, in documentary fils etc.

[ironeagle101]

- When surface units engage other surface units at "long range" they elevate their guns ridicolously high, and appear to be shooting like howitzers or mortars, using 70% degree - this is aesthetically ugly and also annoying. Elementary physics teaches us that 45% give or take a few % is the angle for longest distance shots, and it would also look much better in the game.

Well

Some ships did actually use this tactic, called High Angling, or for gamers: High Angle Whoring. Its simple putting the gun angle above 60%. It gives slight less range, but is more powerfull, because shells will go high, and then drop from huge altitudes, making them faster, and more dangerous! so ships with low deck armour..well..you can figure out what happens :)

the problem of this tactic is though that the shells travel longer, so you got to aim far ahead of the enemy, and if the enemy turns, you miss, and the "spread" is worse, cuz of winds and stuf.

---thats some history

but ingamee, for long distances...shouldnt be like that..

[Hawk_345]

i have just played a few games with the demo and for the most part i am pleased with the game, but i agree with evrything listed in the first post, the gun elevation is all wrong, and also the guns range should be much higher for most ships, especially the battleship, in real life a battle ship could hit targets miles away, ingame you have to get really close, and this just does not make sense, same with cruisers, they should be able to hit something farther away as well, not as far away as a battle ship but still a little more could not hurt. the thing about the subs being able to destroy the base is way to out there, yes it is possible to launch a torp into the concrete base in real life, but it would do hardly any damge and if this was a major military target there would be like 5 destroyers droping dept charges befor the enemy sub had time to shoot a few more torps.

[Nemo_54]

The angles of the main batteries on the ships do represent their realistic counterparts, even visually, although it might not look like it, but they do.

And, although the BBs and CAs range regarding their main battery is pretty pathetic, they developers really had to shorten it for game play reasons. If the guns were in any way realistic they'd be able to shoot all the way across the map (and then some). However, a slight increase in range would be nice.

All flaws and inaccuracies aside though, I will say this, Battlestations Midway is an incredible achievement. And after five years of waiting, my expectations have definitely been meet.

[Hawk_345]

I just played another round and i found another little thing that bugs me, the subs are way to fast underwater,they only loose like 5 in speed, in real life during ww2 subs are very slow underwater and turning takes alot longer than ingame because unlike todays subs, they were designed to operate more times on the surface than below because of the thecnology of the time,like no air purifiers or nuclear power, i think seeing subs are harder to destroy than surface ships,they should be slower for gameplay reasons, but realistically they should be alot slower.

also, yes in the game the ranges have to be toned down a bit, but still they need to be a little more logner than theya re now, because now its just no fun coming in that close all the time with a big huge target like a BB,easy shot for a speedy little DD to come in and drop a load of torps.

[Ragamuffin]

Well

Some ships did actually use this tactic, called High Angling, or for gamers: High Angle Whoring. Its simple putting the gun angle above 60%. It gives slight less range, but is more powerfull, because shells will go high, and then drop from huge altitudes, making them faster, and more dangerous! so ships with low deck armour..well..you can figure out what happens :)

the problem of this tactic is though that the shells travel longer, so you got to aim far ahead of the enemy, and if the enemy turns, you miss, and the "spread" is worse, cuz of winds and stuf.

---thats some history

but ingamee, for long distances...shouldnt be like that..

Actually, the shells would be going a bit slower than on the way down then they did on the way up. In a perfect vacuum the speeds would match. Take a physics class. Hitting on the deck would cause more damage though.

[Hawk_345]

in my opinion the shells from ships should not work like howitzers like they do now, it realy is not realistic and looks stupid beacuse of the range system, i think the guns should shoot straight across like they would in real life, not perfectly straight but i think you get the idea.

[Cpt.sharp]

in my opinion the shells from ships should not work like howitzers like they do now, it realy is not realistic and looks stupid beacuse of the range system, i think the guns should shoot straight across like they would in real life, not perfectly straight but i think you get the idea.

i am not a big fan of how the shells work (like howitzers) but i can see why the devs have done it.

i think its two fold.

1 if it was true to life then the shells (at the ranges we have ingame) would end up at the ship you fired them at with in what? 3 secs. no time to do some fancy driving to avoid them.

2nd reasion is simple. it would just be a point at there turrets, shot the turrets, turrets blow up.... repeat.

at least this way you have a chance to lead your target and predeict your fall of shot.

Great game devs !!

[Hawk_345]

well yes i see what you mean, but stil the overhead shots are jsut not very nice to see as well, big huge guns aiming straight up, it jsut does not seem right, i really think the guns range should be increased to maybe make it more fair if the shots went straight instead of a up and over, it would be more realistic and i still thinkg ameplay would not be very much afected, because in the real game you will have much mroe variety of ships in a battle.

[Corvall]

Cpt.Sharp is right. They had to reduce the range drastically without reducing the amount of time it took for the shells to get there and without making shooting TOO easy. Simulating a high arc seems to be a good way to handle it. I'd have liked more realistic gunnery as well, but I think this system produces the best gameplay given the other constraints.

Corvall

[Hawk_345]

I guess, but it still, too me, ruins the site of the huge 14 inch guns on the BB firing straight up. another thign about the guns i dont like is the sound, i think it should be very LOUD! Inr eal life these guns would make a very loud sound, a 14 inch gun should make a huge bang when fired, right now you jsut dont really get the feeling of a huge shell being propelled out across the water.