Silent Hunter 5 Announced?

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Maybe my imagination just falls short on this one, but I don't get the appeal of the Cold War era subsim.

Sonarman picks up a contact, targeting computer develops a track, you select a track to engage and push the fire button. Weapon moves over to the predicted intercept and activates its seeker. Heck, if the target detects the launch, the weapon can still be updated with new information, changing its course enroute. Oh, and your cruise missiles just get blasted by gatling guns or high-speed missile systems.

Everything is automated. At least SH, so far, has been a challenge to play. And a throwback to WWI would mean your only option is making Dick o'Kanes (no gyros to have your torpedoes turn unto a certain track).

I don't get it.

* not that I didn't enjoy Dangerous Waters, but the scale is far smaller. Just a particular sea where all the action takes place, instead of an entire ocean to roam.

If you had served on one you would realize that nothing is automated. There are tools to help you identify and find solutions on targets and then assist you in employing your arsenal but I can assure you it is much more complicated and interesting than you make it sound. Actually some parts of it are far more complicated and challenging than a WW2 era sub. Although I am pulling for another WW2 game with both theaters and much more graphics and interaction with your crew/submarine. Strategically I love modern subs and served on one, but it is much more difficult to make use of eye candy, and eye candy is VERY important these days. IMHO

No matter though, I am happy for any submarine simulations to be developed. No matter the period or even the quality to some degree.

Rip

[CapnScurvy]

In my opinion if a SHV is released by the 1st quarter of next year this means the product is just about done today. The Devs will be coughing up whatever they have in the next month or two to have it stamped in plastic, package designed and shipped. Probably it will be out on the shelves at the two year aniversary of SH4 in March (or so).

So what will it be like? Well, we just paid a "U.S. Grant" for the 5th patch to a bug filled game. Why not pay some big bucks for patch six? I don't expect this next new "game" to be much different than a rehash of the same SH4 game but with a few new images and missions. From Ubisoft's point of view, the lure of the almighty dollar will force the developers to hand over their work (complete or not), so the Ubisoft bank account can start showing an increase in size.

Patch Six, yes that's a great title!!! Worth every penny of $60.00.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

In my opinion if a SHV is released by the 1st quarter of next year this means the product is just about done today. The Devs will be coughing up whatever they have in the next month or two to have it stamped in plastic, package designed and shipped. Probably it will be out on the shelves at the two year aniversary of SH4 in March (or so).

So what will it be like? Well, we just paid a "U.S. Grant" for the 5th patch to a bug filled game. Why not pay some big bucks for patch six? I don't expect this next new "game" to be much different than a rehash of the same SH4 game but with a few new images and missions. From Ubisoft's point of view, the lure of the almighty dollar will force the developers to hand over their work (complete or not), so the Ubisoft bank account can start showing an increase in size.

Patch Six, yes that's a great title!!! Worth every penny of $60.00.

Well with all respect to the European audience and the interest in WWII-Atlantic-sub-warfare (with which I fully identify) I think that the US market is much more profitable for PCgames. And the US audience would be probably more interested in "their" subwarfare ie the Pacific rather than "Germany's" in the Atlantic. So comercially speaking, SH4 was the opportunity for Ubisoft. The question is if they succeeded or not! The answer to this question will "shape" SH5!!!!

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Rip

If you had served on one you would realize that nothing is automated. There are tools to help you identify and find solutions on targets and then assist you in employing your arsenal but I can assure you it is much more complicated and interesting than you make it sound. Actually some parts of it are far more complicated and challenging than a WW2 era sub. Although I am pulling for another WW2 game with both theaters and much more graphics and interaction with your crew/submarine. Strategically I love modern subs and served on one, but it is much more difficult to make use of eye candy, and eye candy is VERY important these days. IMHO

No matter though, I am happy for any submarine simulations to be developed. No matter the period or even the quality to some degree.

Rip

Like I said; maybe my imagination just falls short on this one.
And my apologies; you're right, I make it sound to easy. Didn't mean to sell anyone short or anything.

I know from Dangerous Waters that the nuclear subs have their appeal to. Just find WWII a more interesting setting. IMHO SH = WWII. If Ubi wants to do a nuke sub game, don't put the SH label on it.

In the end, I'll probably just take what they throw at me. Whatever it is.

[Task Force]

I think its gona be WW2, Picific/Atlanic, Maby some new models, new options like wolfpacks (hince the poll on the SH4 web page) and improved graphics/weather.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Like I said; maybe my imagination just falls short on this one.
And my apologies; you're right, I make it sound to easy. Didn't mean to sell anyone short or anything.

I know from Dangerous Waters that the nuclear subs have their appeal to. Just find WWII a more interesting setting. IMHO SH = WWII. If Ubi wants to do a nuke sub game, don't put the SH label on it.

In the end, I'll probably just take what they throw at me. Whatever it is.

I also agree that pre-modern submarine games in general are likely to be more accessible and have more visual feedback and other characteristics that typically make a better game for John Q Public. So the WW2 product should be the lead product and get major engine improvements first. I especially think the the Silent Hunter branding should be WW2 exclusive. I'd love to see WW1 and modern sub sims realeased by them as well though. Perhaps they could crank out a WW1 one while they work on the next WW2 one. I would imagine you could grind out a nice one by using the SH4 engine.

[Sonarman]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Well with all respect to the European audience and the interest in WWII-Atlantic-sub-warfare (with which I fully identify) I think that the US market is much more profitable for PCgames. And the US audience would be probably more interested in "their" subwarfare ie the Pacific rather than "Germany's" in the Atlantic. So comercially speaking, SH4 was the opportunity for Ubisoft. The question is if they succeeded or not! The answer to this question will "shape" SH5!!!!

Not so sure thats true... I remember the first time sales figures for SH4 were bandied on the forums here about courtesy of an article from CNN? with a figure of 30,000 sales, seemed a bit low, later it was stated that this was the US sales figure, worldwide the game had sold over 300,000 copies and to quote gamesIndustry.biz...

"Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has told GamesIndustry.biz that Europe is now the biggest territory for the world's third largest publisher - greater than the US by "more than 5 per cent" - thanks to greater accessibility of games."

I also think you'll find that the Atlantic theatre is actually more favoured by most Americans here than the Pacific despite the historical connections.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Western release of PT-Boats whose theatres are designed mainly to appeal to it's home (Russian) audience.

[Rip]

I have been told by someone who knows that sales for SH4 are very close to those of SH3. Perhaps if SH5 could cover both theaters it could reach the sum of both. Can you imagine being able to command a sub from any of the nations that had them in WW2. That would be really cool and appeal to audiences the series has never appealed to before. We might actually get some Japanese players.

[Scharnhorst1943]

Originally Posted by Rip

I have been told by someone who knows that sales for SH4 are very close to those of SH3. Perhaps if SH5 could cover both theaters it could reach the sum of both. Can you imagine being able to command a sub from any of the nations that had them in WW2. That would be really cool and appeal to audiences the series has never appealed to before. We might actually get some Japanese players.

I would love this as well, but equally or maybe even a bit moreso, I would like to see Destroyer Command 2 ... or maybe a sim that combines Destroyer Command with Fighting Steel?

[Steeltrap]

Given 65% of school leavers in USA (i.e. year 12 for the rest of us) can't identify the United Kingdom on a map of the world, I don't think it matters which theatre you give them - they won't have a clue about it anyway....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Steeltrap]

On a more 'serious' note, someone challenged us to think of ways to run the game as a MMO scenario.

Here are a few thoughts:

* A 'real' campaign at a tactical AND strategic level. Think about the challenges from each side.
ALLIES:
- need to get a certain volume of traffic through the various convoy routes each week.
- have a certain level of new hulls being built.
- have a certain level of escorts.
- have finite repair capacity (which increases).
- have certain numbers and types of aircraft.
- personnel requirements (enough to man ships, training, R&R).
- ability to conduct R&D in various ways: radar, ASDIC, weapons (air and sea), ships, aircraft, intel (code-breaking and other sources) etc.

AXIS:
- need to prevent the Allies meeting their convoy requirements.
- new hulls.
- various improvements to base facilities (larger capacity, more repairs etc).
- other factors as mentioned above.

* Crew development along the lines of 'Eve' i.e. you need to send crew members to specific training courses to get certain proficiencies. This occurs as real time passes. Experience then adds to the proficiency. In some cases, new technology requires basic training before it can be employed (akin to the delay in fitting out and sea trials as currently in SHIII).

* Same logic for development of technology, deployment of resources (be they bases, base improvements, personnel etc).

In essence you'd be turning WWII into a strategic and tactical environment running 'real time'.

Now, how do you co-ordinate that approach with individual players' availabilities?

Well, a few thoughts:

The strategic side of things involves ability to put ships/technology etc in the field to critical areas.
If you think about it, despite our love of the ability to sail all over the place as/when we like, real skippers didn't have that level of freedom.
Following from that, it doesn't matter about the journey over large parts of the convoy/patrol paths - it's when they intersect things get exciting.

Given these points, you could have a system whereby you are assigned to a flotilla and you manage your crew/boat (decide on upgrades, send crew for training, have repairs conducted etc.) in port and on patrol.

When you login, you're told current status of all those things and when your next patrol is scheduled. If you login once your patrol has 'started', you'll find yourself somewhere out in the ocean. Play for a while and see what you can find. Attack if you find something etc. etc. Eventually you'll get new orders or choose to return to base.

The biggest challenge is how to merge all the different patrols etc into a coherent experience around the globe for all players. There are several ways to do that, I expect. Some of them can be:

* break time into 'chunks' i.e. instead of continuous, time is treated more like 'large turns' from the strategic perspective.

* have the system allow certain orders to be conducted on your behalf when logged out (such as, crucially, to pursue convoys as reported by other boats/assets). You might get a report when playing that could then calculate the various course/speed/time of interception options and allow you to choose (important info would be what your fuel status and distance to base would be based on those choices). You could choose one and log-off, knowing your boat will go in that direction.

* how to coordinate combat? Well, the system could give alerts/schedules i.e. tell you when contact is anticipated (for known targets) so you'd know when to login. It could also tell you when others are due to join battle and you can choose to attack or wait until then. Throw some AI boats into it and you're not dependent on other players loggin in to do a wolfpack attack.

* you can have 'standing orders' in place i.e. if aircraft sighted, dive to 'x' depth then slow to 1/3 for 2 hours etc. This would cover your boat while you're not able to command it.

Now these are all simply some thoughts. The details in working it out would be a killer (although happily taking from existing online experiences makes sense if those mechanisms are fit for purpose). Other issues such as...
- who plays what side (can humans play all combatants?)?
- who 'commands' at a strategic level?
- what ability is there to change history, and to what extent?
....are all further challenges.

Point is it would be possible to do....as I've mentioned, Eve has some aspects of interest, given running around in a human/AI space environment while the players need to logoff for large periods is similar to the challenges in a strategic/tactical subsim.

As to do I think anyone's going to do it? Nope. But if you wanted to justify monthly subscriptions, and create a true online experience merged with strategic considerations, these are embryonic thoughts of how one might approach it.

Cheers

[Sonarman]

Originally Posted by Scharnhorst1943

I would like to see Destroyer Command 2 ... or maybe a sim that combines Destroyer Command with Fighting Steel?

Yes I'd love a DC2 as well but merged with "Task Force 1942" rather than "Fighting steel" which I thought had a terrible interface.

[Solemfero]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Given 65% of school leavers in USA (i.e. year 12 for the rest of us) can't identify the United Kingdom on a map of the world, I don't think it matters which theatre you give them - they won't have a clue about it anyway....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

65% ?? If that is true it doesn’t say much for modern education standards. One wonders how bad their knowledge of history and WW2 is.
Back to the debate on the future of SH.... The future seems to be pointing to on line gaming. Look at games like Battlefield 2 with 50,000 plus players at the same time playing in 100’s of servers. SH needs to expand its on line gaming. Maybe more than one player in each ship or sub and up to 50 people in any game. On one hand trying to protect a convey while others try to sink it. If your ship is sinking you can transfer to another warship/steamer and carry on etc....
What about special missions?? Take command of a midget submarine?? A chariot sub?? Having to get out and cut anti sub nets to blow things up in harbour etc
Anyone else like this idea??

[difool2]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Point is it would be possible to do....as I've mentioned, Eve has some aspects of interest, given running around in a human/AI space environment while the players need to logoff for large periods is similar to the challenges in a strategic/tactical subsim.

As to do I think anyone's going to do it? Nope. But if you wanted to justify monthly subscriptions, and create a true online experience merged with strategic considerations, these are embryonic thoughts of how one might approach it.Cheers

All good ideas-I've already considered much of what you wrote, however. The ultimate issue for the developer/publisher is whether something like that can be profitable (i.e. draw in enough subscribers). The issue with the model you put forth is the extensive downtime involved-like a real skipper you would be experiencing boredom 99% of the time, and excitement (terror) 1% of the time. Even if you got those ratios to 90%/10% respectively, how many people out there would want to subscribe to something like that? Us hardcore subsimmers would of course, but for more casual players that kind of model likely has very limited appeal. This is in addition to other issues to consider in this model-like losing your sub to your dumb AI XO when you are offline.

Hence to draw in these players you may be forced to go with more arcade-like (Navyfield-ish) gameplay, ensuring enough action to keep their attention. The playing area likely would shrink significantly, to name one, and the hunting aspect would fade as you would know where the enemy is most of the time and can beeline straight for them.

You mentioned Eve Online. Could someone who plays that chime in here and offer their thoughts on what lessons we could draw from that game?

[scrapser]

Maybe SH5 will actually be SH4 - Second Edition. That's what I would like to see. You know....yards, not meters...no issues with the environment graphics...no torpedo issues, crew management that works as advertised...no bugs of any kind...none...nada, etc. In short, a sim that works for a change without having to call in the mods to save another highly anticipated beta release from UBISoft.

It's a dream I have.