Dynamic Campaign

[Riggsie15]

Fellers, the most important thing SH5 can have is a dynamic campaign. Having U-boats and Allied subs accually out there doing patrols and special missions (includes Wolfpacks). When at home base the map is updated with sinkings and sightings as if you were at Bdu headquaters. Being able to change the course of a battle and perhapes the war, since every ship you sink had a job to do.

Make it a living breathing would where you're not the only one in it and make your actions count, even if it only slightly impacts the war.

This and GWX is all I want but I'm not going to hold my breath. These developers are more conserned with graphics than immersion.

[tater]

They claimed SH4 had a dynamic campaign, too.

It doesn't.

Asking for the war to change, however, is frankly silly. If you sink a major warship or liner you should not see it again. Past that? Hard to do.

Will the game decide that if X transports are sunk then the germans win the war or something? What-if scenarios at that level are a really bad idea, the results are invariably wrong—the sim would have to simulate whole world economic systems, etc. Impossible, and too much to ask for, IMO.

I'd be happy for ships to be named, one sunk, and it is gone. All of a class sunk, and all are gone, not to be seen again.

BTW, regarding what you see at base... there should be a system to claim a sinking manually. No "instant success" at all. You decide if you sank it, YOU make the claim, and for the type/tonnage. To make a good claim you see it sink. You might lose the claim with a sonar only claim, etc. After you RTB it can have a % chance to corroborate your sinking vs the actual results based on intel. At the end of a career—only then do you actually get credited with the real sinkings.

It would b e interesting to compare claims to reality...

[Riggsie15]

They claimed SH4 had a dynamic campaign, too.

It doesn't.

Asking for the war to change, however, is frankly silly. If you sink a major warship or liner you should not see it again. Past that? Hard to do.

Will the game decide that if X transports are sunk then the germans win the war or something? What-if scenarios at that level are a really bad idea, the results are invariably wrong—the sim would have to simulate whole world economic systems, etc. Impossible, and too much to ask for, IMO.

I'd be happy for ships to be named, one sunk, and it is gone. All of a class sunk, and all are gone, not to be seen again.

BTW, regarding what you see at base... there should be a system to claim a sinking manually. No "instant success" at all. You decide if you sank it, YOU make the claim, and for the type/tonnage. To make a good claim you see it sink. You might lose the claim with a sonar only claim, etc. After you RTB it can have a % chance to corroborate your sinking vs the actual results based on intel. At the end of a career—only then do you actually get credited with the real sinkings.

It would b e interesting to compare claims to reality...

You're right mate, it would be a bit hard and farfetched and as for the base map I was thinking something where the map showed the other uboats positions and claimed sinkings as they were reported in and the course of the war on the sea and land.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with the 'claims' ideas. That could really be a cool addition.

As for SH4 not having a 'dynamic campaign' that has to depend on how you define it. SH2 had no career at all, and SH3 was delayed for six months after we all complained that we wanted a campaign "Just like Aces of the Deep". SH3 has that, and SH4's is even better; so while it's not perfectly dynamic in that anything can happen, I would argue that it's still pretty flexible.

[Jimbuna]

I'd like a bit more detail on the dynamic campaign in SH5.

All in good time though. Any improvement on the SH4 one would be a big plus.http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Lorient Bunker]

Of course 1 submarine alone can't win a war but it can quite easily change the course of a war.

What if the Axum had scored more than 1 hit on the Ohio, or more uboats had responded to Operation Torch?

Sinking a boat load of troops or tanks on the way to a battlefield can make a serious difference to the success or failure of a campaign.

[bishop]

Will the game decide that if X transports are sunk then the germans win the war or something? What-if scenarios at that level are a really bad idea, the results are invariably wrong—the sim would have to simulate whole world economic systems, etc. Impossible, and too much to ask for, IMO.

I wouldn't say it's a totally bad idea or completely impossible. In the 90's, Lucasfilms Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe did a pretty good job of combining tactical, strategic and economic resource management. From the manual:

"On the German side, in addition to directing the fighter defense, you control those sectors of the economy that provide war material for the Luftwaffe. You'll be able to choose exactly what is produced at aircraft assembly plants, aircraft engine factories, oil refineries, and even research and development facilities, where 'secret weapons' are emerging. These decisions can affect what kind of aircraft will be available to fly later on in the campaign"

All that and you could fly a bunch of planes too. Now, of course a lot of this was abstracted and not 100% 'real world' accurate. And the graphics of course were primitive by todays standard. But no doubt, the campaigns in SWOTL were a total blast to play, from both sides.

I think I just talked myself into playing it again...:)

[longam]

I wish we could lay down the history books when it come to a campaign and make this game real interesting to play. Have changes in the outcome base on performance. Take over bases that have been captured. Put a dent in some major battles delaying capture of an island.

[Egan]

• ENEMY REACTIONS: Open new locations, upgrades and resupply possibilities,


While I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, the bit I underlined in the quote gives me pause for thought. Now, it could mean anything at this stage, but why does it sound a bit 'Level 5: Operation Drumbeat! - Score 100 000 grt or more to unlock Operation Monsoon!' :wah:

I can't honestly figure that out, though. It could meen anything but using the word 'Locations' kind of implies something to do with the campaign. I'm well out of the loop on this anyway so maybe someone else knows better.

Nahh, I'm sure it's not. I'm sure. Who am I to talk anyway? The campaigns in SH3 and SH4 turned out to be mostly very enjoyable. Add in a few things and I'm positive SH5 will be great.

[LiveGoat]

While I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, the bit I underlined in the quote gives me pause for thought. Now, it could mean anything at this stage, but why does it sound a bit 'Level 5: Operation Drumbeat! - Score 100 000 grt or more to unlock Operation Monsoon!' :wah:

I can't honestly figure that out, though. It could meen anything but using the word 'Locations' kind of implies something to do with the campaign. I'm well out of the loop on this anyway so maybe someone else knows better.

Nahh, I'm sure it's not. I'm sure. Who am I to talk anyway? The campaigns in SH3 and SH4 turned out to be mostly very enjoyable. Add in a few things and I'm positive SH5 will be great.




This made me do a doubletake as well. I don't want "X-Bawx Acheevmentz" in my U-boot sim.

[Webster]

I wish we could lay down the history books when it come to a campaign and make this game real interesting to play. Have changes in the outcome base on performance. Take over bases that have been captured. Put a dent in some major battles delaying capture of an island.


its very unreal to always have strict historic fact based ship movements in the game and knowing you can be at this place at this time to join this battle might be historically accurate but its just a game "cheat" IMHO.

i want to see the game set up as historically accurate at the start but after that i want what i do in the game to be reflected in the situations i face after i start the game and that what i do can change the outcome of the war.

i want my failures to have real consequences besides just the ships being sunk such as like losing a base or airfield and my success should have the enemy losing resources and thats the true immursion factor i would like to see.

[longam]

its very unreal to always have strict historic fact based ship movements in the game and knowing you can be at this place at this time to join this battle might be historically accurate but its just a game "cheat" IMHO.

i want to see the game set up as historically accurate at the start but after that i want what i do in the game to be reflected in the situations i face after i start the game and that what i do can change the outcome of the war. thats the true immursion factor i would like to see.

Agree, in SH4 we basically have the traffic lanes established with time triggers movement which works, yet as stated before no real change when sinking tonnage. More dynamic movement based on current events would add to the hunt.

We would no longer know the new course of the convoy radio contact, as before it would always return to course.