no world map in SH4???

[Garrincha]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/727/727647p1.html

"The single-player campaign stretches across more than 15 maps, and multiplayer modes allow for cooperative or combative action for eight players via a LAN or four players online."

just a thought: Now will this mean you are warped to the general patrol area, and won't be able to travel all the way, which of course would be a nuisance at best...

In the end i would still prefer to depart from Pearl and sail across the vast Pacific, even if it would take me the better part of a real hour to get there.

Am i misreading something, or is this article misinformed?

cheers,
G

[Safe-Keeper]

That one really frightened me, too.

But then in another review I read that I was "able to roam the map as I pleased and go whereever I want", so I suppose they're keeping the world map.

Or maybe they're increasing the scale of it and thus have to break it down into smaller maps? A 1:1-scaled representation of, well, anyplace in the Pacific would be awesome.

But I sincerely don't hope it means the campaign's not dynamic anymore:-?.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

If it is I might not buy it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Am i misreading something, or is this article misinformed?I just noticed you left the worst possibility out. Was that intentional, or was it your sub-conscious denial-in-the-face-of-bad-news instinct kicking in?

To be honest, it does not sound good at all, one way or another.

[kylania]

But I sincerely don't hope it means the campaign's not dynamic anymore:-?.

It'll be dynamic as seen in this quote:

Subsim: Describe the campaign feature. Will SH4 have the same style dynamic campaign that was successful with SH3?


SH4 Dev Team: No, of course not. We’ll have a much better campaign this time. We’ll do this, among other methods, through more varied patrol objectives and constant interaction with COMSUBPAC and special events that serve to keep you on your toes even in the middle of nowhere.

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../ssr/sh4/sh4_in19.jpg)Subsim: There are geographic aspects of the Pacific war that are distinctly different than the U-boats Atlantic war, such as numerous shoals and reefs, uncharted areas (marked on the maps as "dangerous ground", etc.), and countless islands. Describe how SH4 will capitalize on these areas.
SH4 Dev Team: You can’t have most of the special missions without wading in shallow waters, where there is not much room to dive into when trouble comes! The game will take players close to land on many occasions, especially, but not only, in the SUBSOWESPAC command area.


Now, the second answer isn't clear enough to tell if it'll be a full world map or just selected areas of the theater?

[Safe-Keeper]

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that quote.

[Garrincha]

Am i misreading something, or is this article misinformed?I just noticed you left the worst possibility out. Was that intentional, or was it your sub-conscious denial-in-the-face-of-bad-news instinct kicking in?

To be honest, it does not sound good at all, one way or another.

sub-conscious denial-in-the-face-of-bad-news instinct :yep: :yep: :yep:

It seems like such a leap back in simulation, that i'm not even seriously considering it...

It can't be true... therefore it isn't :smug:

[Sonarman]

Bigger is not always necessarily better. If the maps are smaller and split into operational areas (as they were in the original Silent Hunter) it might actually give us much greater detail. Instead of generic ports we may have a more accurate representation of the actual cities and harbours. And smaller more focussed charts may allow for the inclusion of the depth datum which was absent from the charts in SH3.

[Garrincha]

Bigger is not always necessarily better. If the maps are smaller and split into operational areas (as they were in the original Silent Hunter) it might actually give us much greater detail. Instead of generic ports we may have a more accurate representation of the actual cities and harbours. And smaller more focussed charts may allow for the inclusion of the depth datum which was absent from the charts in SH3.

True, bigger is almost always never better! But do you really believe that if we have operational areas like the philippines, marshalls, gilberts, dutch indies, formosa, yellow sea, japan, korea, marianas, solomons, midway, wake and hawaii... and for the sake of argument, i'm not mentioning ceylon, singapore, the US west coast, australia and all other possible areas... That adding open ocean, which doesn't take any extra resources in development, will lower the detail in named areas.

To be reasonable: Which harbors do we actually want to be realistic. 1) the harbors we all know in our local area. 2) the harbors which are important in gameplay (historical battles etc)

So if they reconstruct Pearl, Tokyo, Manila, Perth, Singapore, Truk, Rabaul, etc... That's fine... The rest can be generic...(the only thing that bothered me in SH3 wasthe positioning of Rotterdam, and the fact that the reclaimed land in the Netherlands that was claimed after WW2 ended is already on the map...)

Depth charts can be imported just like the map in SH3...In real life: in the 40s large areas of the oceans where not charted... Sure, generic depth was known, but only after the use of radar satellites we have precise charts of the globe... Detailed maps of coasts where still considered intellegence... Especially in rarely sailed parts of the pacific...

As said, i prefer a global map, with dynamic campaigning... Send me on lifegaurd duty to Iwo Jima, but i will go to the inland sea to find some shipping "on the way home"...

cheers,
G

[Hylander_1314]

The Pacific is a big piece of realestate. Having the theatre maps broken down will make it easier to patrol the area you are ordered to go to. And like previously stated, should have more detail, especially needed for the clandestine operations that will be included. Besides, there's not much need for a world encompassing map, as once you leave the the sphere of Japanese expansion, you'll be hard pressed to find targets to sink anyways, unless you plan on using Navy property for a pleasure cruise.

[TheSatyr]

Sounds to me like they are breaking it down ito patrol zones...which is the way it should be. Subs didn't leave their assigned patrol areas unless ordered to...or unless they had damn good reason to do so. I hope they use the USN patrol zone numbers. Looking forward to pulling area 7 for a patrol.

[Safe-Keeper]

If it's broken down and the pieces are 1:1, I won't complain as much. I remember patrolling the Norwegian fjords and being disappointed at how low the mountains were (their height was of course scaled down, too). So...

[The Noob]

Sounds Bad....:damn:

Maybe the want to do something Like with Silent Service 2?:hmm:

[Garrincha]

just figured it out... they can do BOTH.... Get high detailed patrol areas, and bind them with low detailed transit areas... The waves are the same, but i doubt i anyone will have a problem with "depth over 500 fathoms" when your test depth is 400 ft... (this might actually be the way SH3 worked)

[longdog499]

IMHO no matter how they might try to dress it up, no World Map would be a massive step back from SH III.I don't even want to think about the possibility.:down:

[THE_MASK]

I think you are making a balls up of this . When they say 14 different maps or whatever arent they talking about the single player missions .

[Immacolata]

If they left out parts of the pacific ocean that is irrelevant to the game, I can't see a problem. Only realism fetishists would be annoyed about not having vast stretchces of empty ocean to paddle around in.

In Silent Hunter III I've heard about people who navigated all the way to south africa and so forth. Me, I stuck to my convoy routes and paid USA a visit. To me, they could have left out most of the atlantic south of equator and I wouldn't have noticed :)

[longdog499]

On reflection I suppose regarding SHIII, I only ever go in to the Atlantic or Med so maybe a map of the whole world would be unnecessary as far as I am concerned anyway but I would certainly like to see the whole 'Pacific' area say Burma to West Coast USA and Aleutians to northern Australia.

[ricnunes]

While I undestand some of the arguments defending the "several maps" implementation instead of a world map implementation I have the oppinion that if the devs decide to go back to the "several maps" implementation (like in SH1) it will be a step back comparing to what we already have in SH3.
I don't mind having a "generic" world as long a some of the most important port/areas of the Pacific war is modeled with some accuracy.
Resuming I prefer by far the "world map" implementation of SH3 and I hope that the devs don't take a step back regarding this!

[Immacolata]

Step back if your aim is a World Simulation. But if the goal is to make a submarine simulation, and more specifically a US submarine hunting japanese ships, I'd say the several maps approach is fine by me. When you are in the 3d-world, you can't see it anyways, it is merely transition between "zones" that you will notice this in. This would also solve the problems of transversing the Pacific on time compression ^^.

If making several maps gives the devs any "free hands" to program other aspects of the simulation that would benefit gameplay more than a large map most players aren't seeing 1/10th of, by all means, do that.

[Jotte]

The interview is a bit unclear but it also have this in it:

John, 45, Great Britain: Given the long transit times between port and the front, how will time compression be dealt with in, say, the central Pacific?
SH4 Dev Team: At this moment we make some test with 4096X but the player will need a powerful PC to deal with the amount of calculation involved. We need to make more tests and checks in order to be sure that this 4096X time compression is crash free and accurate.

[Egan]

If they go the route of the original Silent Hunter I will be very disapointed. Reading memoirs of sub skippers of the time it strikes me that Ingress to patrol areas could be far more dangerous and exciting than when they got there. Now, I'm not asking to be allowed to take a boat from New York, through the Panama canal and up to Pearl, but I would like to start my patrol from base whether that be Pearl or somewhere in Australia. Frankly, the conflicting information makes it difficult to know what is being planned. We shall see. I do have to agree with Ricnunes though, I think it would be a step back too.

[Safe-Keeper]

John, 45, Great Britain: Given the long transit times between port and the front, how will time compression be dealt with in, say, the central Pacific?
SH4 Dev Team: At this moment we make some test with 4096X but the player will need a powerful PC to deal with the amount of calculation involved. We need to make more tests and checks in order to be sure that this 4096X time compression is crash free and accurate.
OK, now I'm confused:-?.

[longdog499]

Egan is right.SHI was a great game for its' time and if I remember rightly you selected a base and submarine type and hit the start button and you then saw a short animation of a sub leaving port and then when the game started properly you were on your patrol map.That was perfectly acceptable then but since then of course we have had SHIII,(I will not bother including SHII which IMHO was a complete waste of time and money and was just trading on the Silent Hunter name).In SHIII you leave the safe haven of your home port not knowing if you are going to even reach your designated patrol area because of all the hazards you might meet on the way.Anything other than this is simply 'gamey' and I'm fervently hoping it's not the road the devs are even considering.

[ricnunes]

Step back if your aim is a World Simulation. But if the goal is to make a submarine simulation, and more specifically a US submarine hunting japanese ships, I'd say the several maps approach is fine by me. When you are in the 3d-world, you can't see it anyways, it is merely transition between "zones" that you will notice this in. This would also solve the problems of transversing the Pacific on time compression ^^.

If making several maps gives the devs any "free hands" to program other aspects of the simulation that would benefit gameplay more than a large map most players aren't seeing 1/10th of, by all means, do that.

In my oppinion the "World Simulation" aproach worked extremelly well in SH3 so I see NO reason why it shouldn't also work in SH4. ;)

[kapitanfred]

I don't care what type of maps are available as long as I have access to the whole of the Pacific and can transition realistically from departing port to operational area and not like (as The Noob mentioned) the Silent Service 2 method of transitioning.

'Cos if the latter is the case then it will be a big :down: and it will remain on the shop's shelves for me.

[Immacolata]

In my oppinion the "World Simulation" aproach worked extremelly well in SH3 so I see NO reason why it shouldn't also work in SH4. ;)

Yes, but the war in the Atlantic was special in that the german submarines literally WAS everywhere. From north to south and east to west ,they tried to intercept convoy shipping. But where was operations taking place in the submarine bit of the Pacific War? Across the entirety of the ocean? no. Mostly in the western part. If I am limited to sailing in the west part, fine by me.

[MarkQuinn]

Yes, but the war in the Atlantic was special in that the german submarines literally WAS everywhere. From north to south and east to west ,they tried to intercept convoy shipping. But where was operations taking place in the submarine bit of the Pacific War? Across the entirety of the ocean? no. Mostly in the western part. If I am limited to sailing in the west part, fine by me.

Good points, but if this is to be a true "dynamic campaign" then why should we be limited only to the west? Dynamic, to me, means the tide of war can turn in directions that are not historical.

[Hylander_1314]

Not if I can help it!

Really, the Pacific is soooooo huge compared to the Atlantic. So, from Hawii west would be fine, but that's still a lot of water to cover before getting to a patrol zone, with a lot of it in friendly water.

SHII has a Dynamic Campaign, but Germany never wins. After Midway, the IJN was no longer the able to offensively operate the way they had. Japan couldn't replace the ships, or moreover, the experiencd sailors and flyers that were lost. Not to mention America's industrial might. Once the U.S. industries got onto a war production footing, the American industries outpaced all the Axis countries combined. And America had the manpower to tip the scales in favor of the Allies. Thanks especially to women like my Aunts and Granmothers who went to the factories to free up the men to go to war.

[CCIP]

Personally, I'm interpreting this as a revision of the 'world engine', which might be for better. If this means that instead of one big map, we'll get a number of smaller but higher-resolution maps between which we could transfer. I see no problem with that. Seriously, would you rather have the Atlantic (why?), or have a nicer map that looks much better near shores than SHIII (just think of the constant 1km square patterns now)?

[kapitanfred]

Personally, I'm interpreting this as a revision of the 'world engine', which might be for better. If this means that instead of one big map, we'll get a number of smaller but higher-resolution maps between which we could transfer. I see no problem with that. Seriously, would you rather have the Atlantic (why?), or have a nicer map that looks much better near shores than SHIII (just think of the constant 1km square patterns now)?

No problem with 1km square patterns either. SHIV is in the Pacific and I doubt very much that the sub would travel up the river channels in any of the locations. As long as a map of the Pacific is available that covers from the Western part of North America to the Western region of Australia and one has the ability to transition in real time (if one wanted to) from one end to the other then that's fine with me. What SHIV could have is an active map that you can click on and more detailed smaller maps would appear at the location your sub is at that point in time.

[Immacolata]

No problem with 1km square patterns either. SHIV is in the Pacific and I doubt very much that the sub would travel up the river channels in any of the locations. As long as a map of the Pacific is available that covers from the Western part of North America to the Western region of Australia and one has the ability to transition in real time (if one wanted to) from one end to the other then that's fine with me. What SHIV could have is an active map that you can click on and more detailed smaller maps would appear at the location your sub is at that point in time.

Sounds like the right idea. That is how naval charts are used anyways. Big ones with low detail, and several detailed charts of treacherous waters. A captain doesn't need a detailed map of the middle of the atlantic as long as the depth under his keel is sufficiently deep.

[Reckall]

BTW. it is entirely possible that:

A) Either "15 screens" means that the map, at the minimum zoom, can be scrolled for fifteen times the area seen in a screen. This is an old way to explain how big the playing area is in a game. Or...

B) Splitting up the map was also done so to avoid the geographic distorsions caused by plotting a whole emisphere on a 2D map.

[Safe-Keeper]

Sounds like the right idea. That is how naval charts are used anyways. Big ones with low detail, and several detailed charts of treacherous waters. A captain doesn't need a detailed map of the middle of the atlantic as long as the depth under his keel is sufficiently deep.Right, pretty much.

A) Either "15 screens" means that the map, at the minimum zoom, can be scrolled for fifteen times the area seen in a screen. This is an old way to explain how big the playing area is in a game. Or...
It was specifically "a campaign spread over 15 maps". So no, no such luck.

Here's hoping they make the maps 1:1, smooth and sleek, so that jagged edges like the ones below will be history:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6134/jaggedbn0.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jaggedbn0.jpg)

[DaMaGe007]

Sailing from dock to patrol area is an integral part of having a dynamic campain as you encounter random ships along the way. I think warping to the patrol area would be a big mistake.

They just need to address the time compression issues and/or make sailing between zones seemless if they are spliting things up.

[Immacolata]

They could use the warp. Warp is a time and space compression. Why is it so important to make an uneventful crossing of 2000 nautical miles with empty ocean to stare at?

[DaMaGe007]

I think we are both right Immacolata I agree with you, warping being a massive time compression level, but encounters along the way need to be calculated or you remove the ship identification part which some like to play that way.
Also if you force warping to the front the 1x time comprssion people arent going to be happy.
I think there is room for both if they add some options to the options menu which simulaters used to thrive on.

EDIT:
Its also possible to argue that a sub sim should simulate the bordom part of submarine life, even if its at a high time compression level and therefore cut down, if you remove it it becomes a torpedo firing arcade game.

[Immacolata]

What encounters? What was the odds of running into a japanese merchant 200 nm from san fran in 1943? Where did the japanese warships operate? I mean realistically, the operations are taking place from Pearl Harbor and then in in the western half of the pacific right?

[DaMaGe007]

This is true and hindsight is helping you with this view.
But at the time a submarine captain would be checking every vessel they came across along the way incase another attack force headed for america or an enemy vessel carying spy's ect.., the japanease werent on thier back foot for the entire war. Captains didnt have the hindsight and knowledge we do now.

[Immacolata]

Boredom? Please. There is enough boredom already. I fail to see the logic in first demanding boredom and the ability to cross the atlantic, then use 4096 compression to do it. This is where realism becomes fetishism, and I cannot see it serve any purpose to have players forced on eventless trawls across the atlantic just because we weren't supposed to know. I know it matters a lot for some people to be able to dock in port, you know, the full patrol from first minute to last. But I sure hope that they do not waste precious time rendering half the pacific which only 0,001% of the playing public will use, while sacrificing fidelity and more detail in the actual ocean that people WILL be sailing in.

In a perfect world, sure, gimme the full ocean. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world and that the devs are probably on a minimal budget, I sure hope they do prioritize the full ocean lower than giving us more details in the important parts.

[kylania]

In a perfect world, sure, gimme the full ocean. Knowing that we live in an imperfect world and that the devs are probably on a minimal budget, I sure hope they do prioritize the full ocean lower than giving us more details in the important parts.

They should leave a whole ocean structure in place for modders to fill out later, but concentrate only on the imediate patrol areas for the game at release. No reason to limit everything since we'll have more time to put into expanding SH IV than they'll have to develop it.

[Immacolata]

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

[kylania]

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

Suffer? What on earth are you talking about? The compromise is the same as in SH3. You design the game to support the entire ocean, but the devs themselves only populate around Japan and Hawaii for instance. So you can have your patrols to Midway and Japan and other big battles but you leave the game expandable by modders to flesh out the rest of the world by adding in new campaigns like we've done with SH3 by adding Indian Ocean or other oceans.

It's irresponsible to take a game franchise like Silent Hunter which has been expanded so well by the players here and limit it to a few pre designed patrol areas when the devs obviously have the technology for more. The tens of thousands of players you speak of will be able to blow up Yamato and set off from Pearl Harbor while the modding community can add in everything else the devs didn't have time for. There's no suffering, just forward thinking.

[Charlie901]

That is very egotistical of you isn't it? Don't forget the tens of thousands of players who play the game out of the box. Should they suffer so that eventually you can make the game as you like? A compromise must be reached. The full ocean in SH3 made sense, due to the nature of the atlantic warfare. But is there any point in making the whole pacific ocean?

Suffer? What on earth are you talking about? The compromise is the same as in SH3. You design the game to support the entire ocean, but the devs themselves only populate around Japan and Hawaii for instance. So you can have your patrols to Midway and Japan and other big battles but you leave the game expandable by modders to flesh out the rest of the world by adding in new campaigns like we've done with SH3 by adding Indian Ocean or other oceans.

It's irresponsible to take a game franchise like Silent Hunter which has been expanded so well by the players here and limit it to a few pre designed patrol areas when the devs obviously have the technology for more. The tens of thousands of players you speak of will be able to blow up Yamato and set off from Pearl Harbor while the modding community can add in everything else the devs didn't have time for. There's no suffering, just forward thinking.


Well Said!!! :up:

[Immacolata]

Kylania, I was also thinking that the big world would reduce the detail of the smaller world. Some claim that the Sh3 world was made up by 1km by 1km squares. Thats rather rough, and for the many islands and canals of southeast asia to be worth your while, they need to have a bit more than 1000m by 1000m fidelity. What if the world map is the reason for this? So in order to get us higher details in local environments, they have to forego the complete world map? A fair trade, isnt it? Focus on the experience that is given now, not what a modder eventually might make it or not make it to in 1½ years. If they are so good, perhaps they can design their own world map, too!

[McBeck]

What if the entire area of operation - like the one we had for SH3, was broken down into sections, but still covering the entire area.

The reason for this approach is very simpel:
Shorter load time, less stress on the PC and more details.

Downside is that you will have to expect some kind of load time, when you sail into a new map.

[Immacolata]

McBeck, I could live fine with that. Time Compression is anyway a kind of load time, so if I am staring at a map waiting for time to fly by at 4096 or at a load screen, fine for me. The people who desire entire oceans can have them, and the rest of us can zip forward to the area we find interesting without hassle and delay.

[GlobalExplorer]

I don't like the idea of "15 maps" instead of the world data. Biggest problem I see is that this will it will not be possible to mod in other theatres, anyone ever thought of german submarines in SHIV??

What exactly they are going to do is in the stars, but I hope they will at least do in a way as good as SHIII. If the terrain is limited to the current TOO, so be it, but please don't limit the theatres so much as to have any real "borders" (like LOMAC for example) - that kills immersion for me, even if I don't want to go anywhere special.

The world was one of the parts I liked most about SHIII. Satellite data is around, freely available, and they (UBI Romania) showed how a believable game world can be made from them .. not that usual hand made phantasy stuff and lame arguments like "of course it not possible to model x with that amount of detail so we thought sticking with y would be cooler". Since playing CFS2 I cannot go back to playing crap on tiny, handmade areas, when there is already a perfect solution. Therefore, my advice to simulation developers is: always use satellite data, it's free, it's good and it covers the whole world, + you can fire the map editors, they're low grade personnel anyways ;)

[AJ!]

I recon having the whole world as the map would be pritty stupid for silent hunter 4. Having the whole pacific however makes perfect sense. Heck im pritty sure thats what everyone was expecting for this game.

Hopefuly these 15 maps are just areas of the pacific map with more detail then other areas and scripted events eg. midway battle

Also fingers crossed the graphics on land are better this time :up:
I mean since the navy in the pacific had alot more involvment in land assaults it would make sense to add much more detail to the land.

[zephey]

I think AJ has a point. I am kind of picturing it like Google Maps for example. You know, how some cities are in High Def and others look like smudges. They might be able to do that. Where some places in the Pacific are "High Def" while the rest of the world is "smudges" if you guys can see what I am saying.

[Safe-Keeper]

I recon having the whole world as the map would be pritty stupid for silent hunter 4. Having the whole pacific however makes perfect sense. Heck im pritty sure thats what everyone was expecting for this game.

Hopefuly these 15 maps are just areas of the pacific map with more detail then other areas and scripted events eg. midway battle

Also fingers crossed the graphics on land are better this time :up:
I mean since the navy in the pacific had alot more involvment in land assaults it would make sense to add much more detail to the land.I suggest you read the reviews and watch the teasers out there. Everything in your post is answered by them.

1. The game will feature the whole world.
2. Land graphics are far better this time.

As for satellite data, it's good, but far from perfect. First of all, the Earth's changed from the 40's to now in several ways, even if you disregarded that, the satellite data needs review so that we don't end up with a map akin to the one in Silent Hunter III, where certain narrow straits and fjords are filled in when they could perfectly well be open.

And, of course, a "handmade" map has a certain charm:up:. Not that I'm advocating one, but it certainly has a charm.

[Harry Buttle]

I'm happy to warp to my patrol location, as long as the PC calculates sightings along the way and drops me into real time when the lookouts/radar/sonar picks up a ship.

For those that want to do it in real time, go for it (but have you considered joining the navy? they'll pay you to do it).

[Iron Budokan]

I don't like the idea of not having a world map, but I kinda understand the idea behind the 15 maps or however many there might be. But what happens when you reach the end of one of these 15 maps?

I guess there's still a lot about the game we don't know yet.

I understand the arguements against a world map, I really do. But....

[Iron Budokan]

Of course if you left one area of operations and entered another via the different maps, that would be cool.

But I don't like the idea of "warping" from map to map, except as an option. Oh, well....

[Safe-Keeper]

They said we'd be able to navigate the entire world, so that must mean that the 15 maps, together, make up the entire world, or at least the watery portions:p.

I'd also assume that when you reach the edge of a map, the game loads the adjacent map. No reason to believe otherwise. Time compression of 4000+ was specifically mentioned in interviews, so "warping" will not be the only option, if an option at all.

[Schatten]

I'm still no seeing where there isn't a whole world map, I could have sworn that the Devs said even the Atlantic was in SH IV but it just happened to be empty. Although I'm sure modders will fix that one...

If you're basing the idea that there isn't the whole world on the one video I was taking that map to be one of the single mission ones, not the campaign map.

Also maybe the confusion is over the word "map". When I say the whole world map is there I mean that things like the Atlantic are in the game and you can sail there. When there have been comments over 15 maps, that could mean there are 15 nav maps available, as opposed to limiting it to 15 ocean zones maybe? I'm pretty sure the whole world is modeled, so that's what I mean by full world map. If it's a navigational chart thing then I don't mind if there isn't one chart to rule them all, having seperate nav charts for geographical areas not only makes sense but means you could get higher fidelity on those charts for depth and the like.

So I'm a little confused...but I could have sworn I saw/read that all of the oceans will be modeled contiguously.

:ping:

[Iron Budokan]

Yes, separate nav maps for different regions makes good sense, imo.

[wamphyri]

Well what if the talk about the seperate maps is just for the single player game like was stated. What I mean is that they may have a "story or plot" lined up resulting in certain missions happening in certain areas. SH3 didn't have this sort of thing and was basically just one big sandbox in game terms. Sh4 may have the exact same thing as SH3 along side it's story mode. It's just another idea i'm throwing out there since we know for a fact that the US subs did more than hunt merchants on the high seas.

Keep an open mind!

Wamphyri

[TwistedFemur]

SH4 Dev Team: No, of course not. We’ll have a much better campaign this time. We’ll do this, among other methods, through more varied patrol objectives and constant interaction with COMSUBPAC and special events that serve to keep you on your toes even in the middle of nowhere.

The question specifically asked if the campaign is dynamic and he doesnt specifcally say it is

if no dynamic campaign ill be keeping my money

[Schatten]

I think the campaign is dynamic, it'd be sort of silly to not be especially since SH IV is based off the SH III engine, but what I think he means there is that instead of the interaction between your sub and HQ being limited to "Go to this area, sail around for a day and try to sink something" that there will be events that come through during the course of your patrol. Things like picking up downed pilots and taking pictures of enemy held harbors are two things that I remember being specifically mentioned for those events.

To me that makes it more dynamic, not less. I read some interviews talking about the SH III campaign development and they wanted to do more with it than the 24 hour patrol grid tasking, but didn't have time to put it in. This time, they have the time.

At least that's how I'm reading it, the campaign will work like SH III's but there will be radio messages changing your orders or adding supplemental orders as you go along. Just look at the scripted and dynamic layers in the campaigns now, that's a massively powerful tool (one I wish someone would put in a flight sim to be honest) being able to have both random events and scripted events occur during a campaign. In SH III the scripted layer can do some amazing things (look at GWX's accurate task forces, battles, etc) but with some more triggers it could be even more amazing since while you're in the campaign the dynamic and scripted layers are completely transpearent. With some tweaking instead of the scripted layer being used mainly for task force placements it could be used to trigger radio events that direct you to go to certain areas if certain events happen.

Just guessing here, but that's how it seems it will work in SH IV. I mean going back to a SH II completely scripted campaign would be not only a regression of the engine, but a waste of a very powerful tool (the campaign layers) which haven't really been exploited to their full potential yet I don't think.

[Gezoes]

Ok, this has me scared now.:huh:

The dynamic campaign on the world map/Atlantic, combined with the random weather, is the best about SH3.

It is unique.
It is wonderful.

:ping:

Sure, it has its limitations, but you never know what is going to happen.

No dynamic campaign? I am not buying SH4 :down:

[Iron Budokan]

I've got my fingers crossed, too. But if SH4 doesn't have a dynamic campaign then I'm keeping my money as well.

Eh, a simple yes or no from the devs would be nice.

[peterloo]

Don't mind... Modders will help us to get that one out

I hope that there will be another GWX??? (I mean the name should not be Grey Wolves) mod to enable the Atlantic Ocean to be our patrol places... Just like what some of you are in Japanese controlled Pennang and sinking Indian merchants

[fire-fox]

my money's on the campain beig like it is in SH1 or very similar at the least.

[Payoff]

I think the campaign is dynamic, it'd be sort of silly to not be especially since SH IV is based off the SH III engine, but what I think he means there is that instead of the interaction between your sub and HQ being limited to "Go to this area, sail around for a day and try to sink something" that there will be events that come through during the course of your patrol. Things like picking up downed pilots and taking pictures of enemy held harbors are two things that I remember being specifically mentioned for those events.

To me that makes it more dynamic, not less. I read some interviews talking about the SH III campaign development and they wanted to do more with it than the 24 hour patrol grid tasking, but didn't have time to put it in. This time, they have the time.

At least that's how I'm reading it, the campaign will work like SH III's but there will be radio messages changing your orders or adding supplemental orders as you go along. Just look at the scripted and dynamic layers in the campaigns now, that's a massively powerful tool (one I wish someone would put in a flight sim to be honest) being able to have both random events and scripted events occur during a campaign. In SH III the scripted layer can do some amazing things (look at GWX's accurate task forces, battles, etc) but with some more triggers it could be even more amazing since while you're in the campaign the dynamic and scripted layers are completely transpearent. With some tweaking instead of the scripted layer being used mainly for task force placements it could be used to trigger radio events that direct you to go to certain areas if certain events happen.

Just guessing here, but that's how it seems it will work in SH IV. I mean going back to a SH II completely scripted campaign would be not only a regression of the engine, but a waste of a very powerful tool (the campaign layers) which haven't really been exploited to their full potential yet I don't think.

Excellent points there Schatten. I tend to agree, it is highly unlikely that UBI would revert back to a scripted campaign after all of the time / resources spent on creating the campaign layers.