SiMPLE | Forum

Catpain_Blackadder

Member

Reputation: +90

Location: Indiana

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 554

Ship respawn in Midway

Here's an idea.  What if ships did not re-spawn on the Midway map once they were sunk?  I think this would make the battle more realistic; after all, Midway was a naval battle, and once a ship was sunk it couldn't be replaced during the battle.  This would make it actually meaningful to sink an enemy ship, as opposed to nobody caring since it's just going to re-spawn again in a minute anyway.  To balance this we could also add more carriers at the start; after all, Japan had four carriers and the US had three at the real battle.

Dashi_Dorzho

Member

Reputation: +82

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 37

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

you wrote about realistic in bf 1942? Ahaha you are funny)))
Carriers vs carriers is coral sea. Second carr vs carr map not needed, I think.
and if not to respawn ships after sink then there's no need on respawning tanks, jeeps, planes, defguns... why ships only?
so I think that's bad idea(

nämeless

Semi-corrupt admin

Reputation: +2598

Location: Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

Registered: 2012-09-30

Posts: 9,767

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

The carrier spawn time at Midway is very short. There is no sense to destroy the carrier and devastate foe's air support because they will get a new carrier in a minute or two.

giant

Player

Reputation: 0

Registered: 2015-06-25

Posts: 2

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

I hate Omaha beach with the bots.  They render the ship useless.  Please remove omaha beach co-op and replace it with the regular
Omaha beach.  thank you  giant

PitViper

TGE|

Reputation: +431

Location: *TheGreatEscape|USA

Registered: 2014-09-27

Posts: 2,188

Website

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

Bots piss us all off at one time or another...the server will always have bots until it fills with players, then they are auto-kicked as each new player joins.  If an admin is in game you can request for bots to be turned off...be aware that is strictly a judgement call of that admin and usually there has to be enough players to warrant it.

'regards

Catpain_Blackadder

Member

Reputation: +90

Location: Indiana

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 554

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

you wrote about realistic in bf 1942? Ahaha you are funny)))
Carriers vs carriers is coral sea. Second carr vs carr map not needed, I think.
and if not to respawn ships after sink then there's no need on respawning tanks, jeeps, planes, defguns... why ships only?
so I think that's bad idea(

   What I mean by "realism" here is following the real battle as far as the framework of the game allows, and not choosing to make it less "realistic" if we don't have to.  Making a map called "Battle of Midway" more of a naval battle and less of an infantry battle makes it more realistic, because the real battle wasn't an infantry battle.  It probably would have become one if the Japanese had won the naval battle, but they didn't (and if they had there still would have had to be a naval battle beforehand).

   Interesting point about not needing a second carrier vs. carrier map, but why can't we have them?  Couldn't we also say we don't need two tank vs. tank maps, or two infantry vs. infantry maps, etc?

   Regarding your question "why ships only," I agree that the same could be done for defguns.  They are similar in that both types are major weapons and very limited in number; with tanks, jeeps, planes, and especially men, the game can't handle the numbers that would have been present at the real battle, so we kind of pretend that they just came in from somewhere else.  It might be interesting to find a way to limit the number of re-spawns for these as well, I guess trivially it could be done by increasing the re-spawn times.

Catpain_Blackadder

Member

Reputation: +90

Location: Indiana

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 554

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

The carrier spawn time at Midway is very short. There is no sense to destroy the carrier and devastate foe's air support because they will get a new carrier in a minute or two.

   Yes, exactly.

Dashi_Dorzho

Member

Reputation: +82

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 37

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

you wrote about realistic in bf 1942? Ahaha you are funny)))
Carriers vs carriers is coral sea. Second carr vs carr map not needed, I think.
and if not to respawn ships after sink then there's no need on respawning tanks, jeeps, planes, defguns... why ships only?
so I think that's bad idea(

   What I mean by "realism" here is following the real battle as far as the framework of the game allows, and not choosing to make it less "realistic" if we don't have to.  Making a map called "Battle of Midway" more of a naval battle and less of an infantry battle makes it more realistic, because the real battle wasn't an infantry battle.  It probably would have become one if the Japanese had won the naval battle, but they didn't (and if they had there still would have had to be a naval battle beforehand).

   Interesting point about not needing a second carrier vs. carrier map, but why can't we have them?  Couldn't we also say we don't need two tank vs. tank maps, or two infantry vs. infantry maps, etc?

   Regarding your question "why ships only," I agree that the same could be done for defguns.  They are similar in that both types are major weapons and very limited in number; with tanks, jeeps, planes, and especially men, the game can't handle the numbers that would have been present at the real battle, so we kind of pretend that they just came in from somewhere else.  It might be interesting to find a way to limit the number of re-spawns for these as well, I guess trivially it could be done by increasing the re-spawn times.

If you want to make game more realistic then we need to do that with all maps, not only midway. for example, we need some tanks in Berlin - in real battle they were. Or we need to create underground fortifications on Iwo jima - they were in real battle, in fact. i mean, why only midway must be realistic?
About no need a second carr vs carr map - i think not all players are pilots. and midway will be the same as coral sea - just spawn (carrier) camping. that's mad. if there will be camping then none of losing team can take plane and fly to the island to prove himself at tanks or inf. and in fact, we have 6 or more tanks vs tanks maps - too much for those who are not good at tanks. and also with inf - we have berlin, stalingrad and omaha - too much for those who are bad in inf.
about defguns - i agree.

Catpain_Blackadder

Member

Reputation: +90

Location: Indiana

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 554

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

If you want to make game more realistic then we need to do that with all maps, not only midway. for example, we need some tanks in Berlin - in real battle they were. Or we need to create underground fortifications on Iwo jima - they were in real battle, in fact. i mean, why only midway must be realistic?
About no need a second carr vs carr map - i think not all players are pilots. and midway will be the same as coral sea - just spawn (carrier) camping. that's mad. if there will be camping then none of losing team can take plane and fly to the island to prove himself at tanks or inf. and in fact, we have 6 or more tanks vs tanks maps - too much for those who are not good at tanks. and also with inf - we have berlin, stalingrad and omaha - too much for those who are bad in inf.
about defguns - i agree.

   My main point is that losing a capital ship should be a major event in this battle, something that can even decide the battle.  Right now it doesn't really matter if you sink an enemy carrier, because it will re-spawn in a minute or two as if nothing had happened.

   My point about realism is not that we need to add more and more detail, but if we have the choice between whether to make Midway a land battle (which it wasn't) or a naval air battle (which it was), why not choose what it was instead of what it wasn't?  I agree with you about carrier camping on Coral Sea; see my post Camping aircraft carriers and airbases.  I know not all players are pilots, but imagine this game if the carriers were important to defend, and bailing over them were not allowed so that non-pilots could man the AA guns instead of having to "repel boarders" all the time.

   It can still be a land battle, but losing the support of your ships should make that land battle much harder to win.

Russ

Jack-of-all-trades

Reputation: +136

Registered: 2015-06-26

Posts: 390

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

   My main point is that losing a capital ship should be a major event in this battle, something that can even decide the battle.  Right now it doesn't really matter if you sink an enemy carrier, because it will re-spawn in a minute or two as if nothing had happened.

There are a number of problems with this. The first being is that most players don't care about anything naval. They don't have the patience for it, and there are usually more players than ships anyway. The second is view distance. For a navy to successfully defend against something like the prince of whales, it needs to be able to see it. And the only thing that can decently defend against a well manned one is the japanese equivalent. By the time anyone actually sees that the enemy ship is in the area, it's far too late for any other ships to come aid the battle.  Unless both ships round the island on the same side, the battle would just be both ships head to the opposite side, sink the carrier, followed by the two destroyers. Now you have 2 steerable ships and up to 18 players per team. It would just become a very boring map.

Catpain_Blackadder

Member

Reputation: +90

Location: Indiana

Registered: 2015-06-28

Posts: 554

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

   My main point is that losing a capital ship should be a major event in this battle, something that can even decide the battle.  Right now it doesn't really matter if you sink an enemy carrier, because it will re-spawn in a minute or two as if nothing had happened.

There are a number of problems with this. The first being is that most players don't care about anything naval. They don't have the patience for it, and there are usually more players than ships anyway. The second is view distance. For a navy to successfully defend against something like the prince of whales, it needs to be able to see it. And the only thing that can decently defend against a well manned one is the japanese equivalent. By the time anyone actually sees that the enemy ship is in the area, it's far too late for any other ships to come aid the battle.  Unless both ships round the island on the same side, the battle would just be both ships head to the opposite side, sink the carrier, followed by the two destroyers. Now you have 2 steerable ships and up to 18 players per team. It would just become a very boring map.

   I'd remove the Prince of Wales.  It was a British ship that had nothing to with the Battle of Midway anyway .  The Yamato could also be removed or not spawn until later in the game, as it was way back with the invasion fleet during the real battle.  Alternatively, my earlier suggestion of increasing the number of carriers would make it harder for the battleship to do what you suggested, especially given the extra planes that would come with them.

   You might be right, though, about a lot of that. It might just be too much work unless someone is reworking the whole mod.  It would be interesting to see how it would turn out, though.  However, I still think the game would be improved by limiting ship re-spawns, either by eliminating them or at least increasing the time between them, and I think that wouldn't be too difficult to do.  I don't want to turn this map into an air-sea battle as much as I want sinking the ships to matter.

TOOKIE GOODNITE

impeached (twice)

Reputation: +319

Location: Dallas, Texas

Registered: 2012-06-27

Posts: 636

Website

Re: Ship respawn in Midway

On the USA server the carriers respawns in like 20 seconds. And I like it!!!