Battlestations: Pacific demo released tomorrow 4/30

[Stark]

You're demonstrating what Hawkeye is talking about perfectly. Cruisers have weapons that fire faster than primary BB guns and kill destroyers fine. If the game has simplistic 'BB r bettah than teh DD' than it is literally MORE SIMPLISTIC THAN BATTALION WARS.

[Chardok]

You're demonstrating what Hawkeye is talking about perfectly. Cruisers have weapons that fire faster than primary BB guns and kill destroyers fine. If the game has simplistic 'BB r bettah than teh DD' than it is literally MORE SIMPLISTIC THAN BATTALION WARS.

Nah uh - cause it haev teh bombers and japaneeze. and anti alisassing.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're demonstrating what Hawkeye is talking about perfectly. Cruisers have weapons that fire faster than primary BB guns and kill destroyers fine. If the game has simplistic 'BB r bettah than teh DD' than it is literally MORE SIMPLISTIC THAN BATTALION WARS.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I certainly didn't say that Battleships are always better or should be. Head to head combat between ships aside, their are some things destroyers obviously do much better, sub-hunting being the most obvious one. But if you've played the game you know that both cruisers and battleships will most likely win against a destroyer (which is as it should be). I suspect the cruiser would take a little longer to do so, but I'll admit I'm not sure.

[CaptHawkeye]

A cruiser shouldn't take longer to kill a DD since...

A. It has comparable speed and maneuvering to a destroyer, and thus can more easily dodge its torpedo attacks.

B. Though it wouldn't need to get that close in the first place. Since a Cruiser's medium size naval guns (usually 6-8inch) fall in between DD and BB guns in firepower vs. rate of fire. It turns out when your target is unarmored you don't need to shoot at it with 14-16 inch guns. Especially when those guns are inconvenient to aim at a such a small target.

Historically this is just the role CLs and their later evolution CAs were designed for. BBs can and most likely would kill destroyers like mad, but they don't do it efficiently. Midway actually handled things this way. You can seriously go watch videos on youtube of guys rushing Kongo with a Fletcher, tossing torpedo broadsides into it, and getting away almost unscathed.

[The Romulan Republic]

A cruiser shouldn't take longer to kill a DD since...

A. It has comparable speed and maneuvering to a destroyer, and thus can more easily dodge its torpedo attacks.

Alright, you're probably correct.

B. Though it wouldn't need to get that close in the first place. Since a Cruiser's medium size naval guns (usually 6-8inch) fall in between DD and BB guns in firepower vs. rate of fire. It turns out when your target is unarmored you don't need to shoot at it with 14-16 inch guns. Especially when those guns are inconvenient to aim at a such a small target.

That's true.

Historically this is just the role CLs and their later evolution CAs were designed for. BBs can and most likely would kill destroyers like mad, but they don't do it efficiently. Midway actually handled things this way. You can seriously go watch videos on youtube of guys rushing Kongo with a Fletcher, tossing torpedo broadsides into it, and getting away almost unscathed.

Again, I'm going off my own experiences as a player. I'm willing to accept that I might not be a very good player, however.

I do wish, however, that their was some kind of scenario editor that would let the player set up one on one duels between various ship types and put it to the test.

[CaptHawkeye]

This discussion actually brings up a wonderful problem with gameplay design these days. Chromehounds is a game that touted itself on thousands of different and unpredictable combinations of player chosen parts.

But that doesn't matter because some people just broke the game down into predictable game-guides and more or less forcing people accept their singular builds.

http://www.game-and-player.com/articles ... ounds.html

Gamers want to simplify their games. Why? Because they need to power trip. They need to know, not think, whether or not they can beat their opponent.

[Stark]

There's always people who will grind the numbers and find best path through any config setup. It's like that example - there might be seventy poontillion variations, but only four are any good.

[CaptHawkeye]

I used to think multiplayer was the best part of any game, especially when you could "customize" your approach to it. But as I'm getting older I'm drifting away from interest in yet another TDM full of whiny, squabbling brats going on and on about how leet their shotgun rig they pulled from a game guide is. It's pointless to play because after a month, everyone has figured out the best combos anyway. So why bother? I'd call for more single player games, but developers hate making AI routines since it takes work. God forbid.

[Stark]

If only you played Gears? On your line, playing Demigod is very amusing; lots of 12 year old morons proclaiming they have a 'sweet build'.

Is it wrong the gaming situation is so bad that I've started a relationship, picked up a hobby and pretty much exclusively play Gears co-op these days? I'm thinking of pre-ordering Elemental to get into the six months of betas, and ... that's it.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm looking into the future and seeing Flashpoint DR is the only game I have any interest in.

Whenever I had free time I always ran to my games first. Now i'm actually deciding every time if I should play a game, or watch a movie. That's a warning of sorts.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm looking into the future and seeing Flashpoint DR is the only game I have any interest in.

Whenever I had free time I always ran to my games first. Now i'm actually deciding every time if I should play a game, or watch a movie. That's a warning of sorts.

What's wrong with watching a movie as opposed to playing a game?