Battlestations Pacific USA Campaign Intro

[BlingMikzy]

Guns and Roses dont cry with this intro

[Unknown1355]

I wish they had continued the series... 100% chance of pre-order from me for Battlestations 3!

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

pome



[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

we got our own slang for the english

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

im australian not british

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

kiwi means new zealander

canuck means canadian

seppo is another slang word for american comes from septic tank stating that americans are fall of shit also tank rhymes with yank

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

i could start caling you a seppo if you'd prefer

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

smart arse

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

american experts only i think

there were pilots from every allied nation in the battle for britain aussies kiwis yanks canucks polish czechs

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

i disagree

and also if i recall thre were no mustangs in battle of britain battle of britain was the ultimate test of pilots and aircrafts and the spitfire came out on top the mustangs main counter was japanese zeros and they were built for speed and not for armour so it dint take much to bring them down so again i disagree no odoubt the mustang was a great aircraft but wasnt the greatest

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

compared to russian british australian and german pilots the amricans were horrendous they used to shoot down there own planes to often and with there technology they should have been the best

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

and dont forget ww1 top ace Manfred von Richthofen german aswell and shot down by an australian 3o3 rifleman

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

the sherman had nothing over the russian t-34

[AlienFirefox]

@Sharkattack48

they were two completely different planes mate the spitfire was better for our use as since the americans were horrendous pilots they required much better armour

[Aragorn362]

I hope someone can answer my question.What are these pictures on the planes called,like the one in the C-47 in the video? I mean the picture with " Sack Time" written on it.

[lifevest1]

3:11 the bomber was probably like, "Where were you five seconds ago?!"

[fdsdh1]

Big argument but I like TA 152 best but it was not used in large enough numbers to be effective and was often not used at the correct altitude it was designed for but it is a very good plane

[Bran40519]

@Alienfirefox

Untrue. Shut the fuck up and stop generalizing the WHOLE AMERICAN POPULATION for just 1 idiot, Moron.

[Danjiano]

[generic greeting]

[this game is]

[adjective]

[link to yet another stupid site]

[seon126]

wow this game is amazing!! I had to pay for it at (stupid spammers go away..com!)

[campbell24sonya]

buenos dias folk

i simply grab this game and it's

moving

get it here dlhut ..net

[campbell24sonya]

hey sir

i personaly just now get this game and it's

marvelous

grab it here dlhut ..net

[jimenezchelsea445]

This game is awesome guys get it at blackhatt..com

[RandomLOLROFLMAO]

Wasn't there a B-24 called Sack Time that got rammed by a German plane in Europe? O_O?

[michnixten]

 Battlestations: P działa na Windows 7 ?.

[DownloadDirectFree1]

xr(DOT)com/o3s8

[1997vn]

When i try to launch the game,it say "bsp.exe error" why?!

[socomsix19]

i love war seeing it on television and in games, i only got war games

[killzzification]

U.S Navy rocks



[insanekillers1232]

-confused- this is wierd, i mean i really like the game, and i can't wait to get it, but at the same time, im wondering why they made the intro look like the game is going to have a focus on infantry combat

[dazzasl93]

I'd recommend this game for anyone that played midway. This is like the sooped up version with the snazzy paint job and the sparkling rims. But it also has the internal workings of a V8 Engine and 600 Bhp, Like a really fast sports car this game looks brilliant with the much improved graphics, and it also performs well with the new game modes and command interface.

[Vertigo645]

Corsair + Zero + B-17 = win lol is this game worth getting?

[starwars8553]

your really lucky to have this game!i am clearly in love with midway so i want to get this one to(pacific)

[thewhochilipeppersU2]

what did it mean by sack time?

[TheBroadyk]

Bloody heck I am impressed I hve to watch it again!

[seon126]

3:15 good kill

[bbsloveme]

its cool because it gives you insight to what happens on the land with the marines instead of being a ship or plane protecting the landing ships. theres a mission that you just protect marines. its insanely fun and theres a ton of explosions.

[JilutheFang]

OMFG! That 3D's do realy look like human more and more!

[TheBattleboy]

the scene at 1:37 it looks likes counterstrike.

[gyardosxxx]

in world war 2 i thnx americans defending philippines againts japs but it doesent mean i hate japs

[boznian4life]

is battle stations pacific only for 360 and pc??

[000Shepherd000]

yes

[creapsmantic]

stupid u pay for live an have to pay for internet service

[lol1320]

you pay DLC from LIVE not live

[ctheman7]

is Henry walker (from BSM) in this??

[m1rock]

I think so. From what I hear it picks up right where Midway left off.

[StokieStallion]

The 1st japanease mission pearl harbour was interesting you get to kill henry from the midway game (destory the patrol boats) thaought that was brilliant!

[commanderbacara198]

You can also kill donald in his p-40 mustang and if you kill both you get an achievment.

[joeferrito]

umm, P-40 was the warhawk

[USStealth1288]

is it going to be co-op

[TehIdiotOne]

No, there is no Co-Op

[M1A2Carbine]

i hope both the inros on here are not real cuz you dont get enterduced to all the charectors or i hope they cut in the middle

[warnerd15]

USA will pown ur face

[BOB7268]

1:44 u got to love american air power

[OmgWutHax]

@BOB7268 Agreed lol

[AlienFirefox]

@BOB7268

american air power was inferior compared to other powers during ww2

russian and british were the best

the jaoanese zero was also very good

the only decent aircraft the yanks had was the mustang and even it was pretty crap compared to the spitfire or the mig-3 and the german stuka beats it too

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

Wut? Early war perhaps, but with the P-38 onwards, US planes were dominating, to say nothing of later models like the P-47 and P-51. And Russia? One of the best russian planes was the Lend Lease P39 Airacobra, which was rejected by the Army AIr Force due to insufficient performance.

And comparing the P-51, a long-range fighter, with the Stuka, a specialised divebomber, is completely inane. The Stuka was easy prey for any fighter.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

the best russia had was the mig-3 is was a very sleek and very easy manuvable plane.

the yak-3 was also right up there.

the stuka was an extremely good fighter mate the stuka has top accuracy and unfortunately the germans dominated with aircrafts and tanks during ww2 the stuka was also very capable of taking quite a large amoutn of flak before going down the jap zero was extremely weak armoured

the mustang was prone to the engine stopping and starting again in mid air

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

THe MiG-3 was a distinctive minority among russian planes. Lend-Lease AIracobra sand Kingcobras as well as LaGGs were all used in far larger numbers. The JU-87 Stuka was not a fighter (even the name itself shows it, being a abbreviation of the german word for "divebomber") and completely unsuitable to be one. It was a dedicated ground attack aircraft which was easy prey for any fighter due to being sluggish and slow as hell compared to one.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

the stuka was used as both mate

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

No, the Stuka was not used as both. It was utterly and completely unsuited to being a fighter and never used in that capacity. For fucks sake, the inbuilt armament of the Stuka consisted of a measily two forward-firing .313 machineguns and a thir .313 in the rear. Compare that with actual fighters, where early-war designs had 8+ machineguns while later versions traded this generally in for 20mm+ autocannons.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

fighters only had machineguns back in those days until later in the war

they all had bombs too

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

No, you idort, fighters did not use bombs. GODDAMN FUCKING DIVEBOMBERS did. Why? Because tacking bomb racks on a fighter put a huge strain on maneuverability and speed. And no, fighters early in the war did not just have machineguns, 20mm autocannons were already in service. The Bf 109 had one from the first version on. ALso, the Bf 109, like all actual fighters, WAS NOT ABLE TO CARRY BOMBS.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

dive bombers were also fighters they sort of had to be idiot

anyways ur to stupid to talk so i aint going to talk to you anymore

yanks are always so fucked up they dont know anything about history they dont even know there own

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

False, moron. Even early war, the german fighters already had 20mm. And anyone else used at least 6-8 machineguns in their fighters, not 2. And no, not a SINGLE DEDICATED FIGHTER had bombs, you complete fucktard. Installing a bomb rack on a fighter would have compromised its primary role by putting a huge hit on speed and agility. You literally know nothing of WWII combat aircraft.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

i never insinuated that fighter planes did

i said that dive bombers were also used as fighter planes they had to be

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

The Stuka had a maximum speed of 242 mph and a service ceiling of 27k feet. Just for comparison, the Brewster Buffalo, generally considered to be a completely obsolete fighter even in the early war, had a maximum speed of 310 mph, a service ceiling of 33k feet, a forward armament of 4 .50cal machineguns and was vastly more maneuverable than the JU-87 given its vastly lower wing loading and higher power/weight ratio. German fighters were the Bf 109 and FW-190, not the JU-87.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

it was slower but had better armour i said that all ready

its armour left the mustang for dead

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

Yeha, right. Better armor. Except not really. The StuKa was a pretty darn flimsy plane, especially for a divebomber. Came easily apart under fire from .303 machineguns. The Mustang was actually better armoured than that. In fact, it's armour was above average for a fighter. But then ,you have already shown that you're a lying sack of shit who doesn't know anything. Get lost, poser.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

the stuka was built like the sherman tank a very shit design but was very easy to manufacture

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

Trying to compare the Stuka with a Zero is complete idiocy. The closest carrier-borne equivalents of the IJN would be the Val or Kate. The closest counterpart to the Zero would be the Bf 109. And the Mustang was the single b est fighter plane of the entire war, par none. Speed, high-altitude performance, survivability and range made it superior to any other fighter of the time with the only plane even playing in loosely the same league being the TA-152.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

i never compared a stuka or a zero

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

Yes, you did.

To quote: stuka was also very capable of taking quite a large amoutn of flak before going down the jap zero was extremely weak armoured

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

i wasnt comparing i was just saying because you bought up the zero

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

and was mostly built for speed and to work in mass numbers.

i think you mean the corsair not the mustang mate the corsair was the best aircraft america had thats primarily why we used it in the korean war when i say we i mean america and australia i think the british used it too actually.

but it left the mustang for dead and didnt stand much of a chance against the stuka however.

also the yak-3 as i stated was considered by some the best aircraft of ww2

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

The Corsair was a carrier-based plane, which was about the only advantage it had over the Mustang. The P-51 was faster, longer-ranged, had a higher service ceiling and was better armored. And both of them would utterly butcher a Stuka. In fact, a goddamn pre-war Brewster Buffalo would butcher a StuKa becuase the Stuka was not a fighter and as good as defenseless against any fighter.

And there was not a single german fighter that the P-51 couldn't face on at least equal terms.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

corsair the only us plane the japs feared

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

No, they also feared the Thunderbolt, the Jug and the Mustang just as much.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

the mustang was pretty crap mate thats why us aussies didnt use em in pupea new guinea we used spitfires

[Magni56]

@AlienFirefox

You're a lying piece of shit now. The Spitfire was NEVER used by the USAAF. It was used by british commonwealth troops in Papua. The Mustnag was utterly superior to even a late mark Spitfire. That's FACT. Given that you're now down to pulling moronic lies out of your ass, it is clearly useless to debate any further. Your concession is accepted.

[AlienFirefox]

@Magni56

I NEVER SAID THE SPITFIRE WAS U MORON I SAID IT WAS USED BY AUSTRALIA AND IS BETTER THAN THE MUSTANG

READ WHAT I SAID KID

[crazyking121]

this charaters look funny

[matthew5484]

Excellent quality, i do worry that this will be more like call of duty than battlestations midway.

[sgtbarone]

not sure how but ok

[matthew5484]

In terms of being more focused on landing soldiers instead of playing as the ships

[al28283]

its nothing like call of duty at all

[TehIdiotOne]

Landing soldiers is like nothing at all part of the game, rest is combat.

[al28283]

I cant understand you

[TehIdiotOne]

Sending landing boats is almost nothing in the game, you just press and button and you dont have to think about the landing boats any more beacuse they do it all automaticly, then you can do other objectives when you have sent the landing boats.

[m1rock]

I think it would have been pretty awesome to have a Company of Heroes style control of ground forces in this game. Like once you land your tanks and troops you could control them like in Company of Heroes or direct control like in Faces of War

[jolicia12]

its a good idea, but if it comes to a mission where you have to take control of aircraft, a fleet, and troops/tanks, it will be too difficult to do, but its a good idea

[m1rock]

Ah, but thats where good AI comes in. Additionally they could set it up like the Combat Mission series, where you could pause the game, set up way points and actions for your other forces then you can concentrate on say manually controlling infantry operations while your carriers and planes cover the fight using a mix of AI and your orders. Its also more realistic because sometime a General has to rely on his officers to make the call in battle and cant always be there to micro manage.

[jolicia12]

ah yes i guess so, but, as you know from the previous game, when it comes to a moment, when everything is going wrong all at the same time, it will be hard/annoying to keep switching between each type of force, because like other strategic games, you want to control different parts of troops/tanks etc for example to flank an enemy and so on, but it would be too hard for even experienced players to take full control, mulitplayer it would be good because you can split forces but im not sure

[jaimadman]

cant wait

[thunderbolt445]

Holly ####! This is some BA material!

[mbcNOOFS]

this is a pretty sick spoiler.