Objective-driven - Dynamic Campaign

[Harcor]

Hi guys I have a question towards this objective Driven campaign.
The important think for me is that we get the Dynamic Campaign as in Silent Hunter 3 .

Will it be like Silent Hunter 3.???
I loved the way I coul´d go wherever i wanted. I hope they didn´t take that out, and instead they put only important missions that took place during World War 2 . What do they mean with ths objective driven campaign?

Is it like : you helped the Bismark to get out of that disaster - so the Bismark is still available after the 27.5.1941 killing other vessels like a wolf. - So i´t could be possible to even win the War???

Let us discuss this important issue.

[Task Force]

Originally Posted by Harcor

Hi guys I have a question towards this objective Driven campaign.
The important think for me is that we get the Dynamic Campaign as in Silent Hunter 3 .

Will it be like Silent Hunter 3.???
I loved the way I coul´d go wherever i wanted. I hope they didn´t take that out, and instead they put only important missions that took place during World War 2 . What do they mean with ths objective driven campaign?

Is it like : you helped the Bismark to get out of that disaster - so the Bismark is still available after the 27.5.1941 killing other vessels like a wolf. - So i´t could be possible to even win the War???

Let us discuss this important issue.

might be...

but anywho we will loose the war agains the allies because of the land armys, If in the campaign the eastern front goes sour and russia marched to berlin we would loose anyway.

[Sailor Steve]

The objectives were something I actually really liked in SH4. Sometimes captains were given special orders, but more often not. I don't know how adjustable those objectives were for the modders, but in Operation Monsun I've been ordered to go to different grids and patrol, then to another grid again, and then to do as I pleased until supplies were exhausted. That was an "objective-driven campaign" I could live with.

As long as it doesn't go back to the string of single mission levels that marred SH2, I can live with it.

[pythos]

Have to correct something. If the U-boats were able to be used how Doenitz had intended, and had he had more boats at his disposal. The land war would have been lost. Armies need supplies like ammo, food, fuel and so on, not to mention troops. But the U-boats would have pretty much crippled this, had they been used how Doenitz wanted.

Thank God the higher ups were stupid for the most part.

Remember what just 6 u boats did off the Us coast. Now think about Doenitz's desired 300 or more.

The war would have been entirely different.

One only needs to look at the strangle hold the Fleet boats had in the pacific. The Yamato would have been a force to be recond with had the fuel been around to keep her viable, instead being used for a one way mission the way she was. But the Fleet boats pretty much stopped the supply of fuel to the main land.

As far as the objective driven aspect. I like the idea of "saving the Bismark", and having it around in an alternate story line. It would be an interesting idea. At the same time I want free roaming like we have in SH3 and 4. No scripted crud like Sh2, that was lacking so much.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As long as it doesn't go back to the string of single mission levels that marred SH2, I can live with it.

That's what killed SH2 for me.

[Powerthighs]

Remember what just 6 u boats did off the Us coast. Now think about Doenitz's desired 300 or more.

That's true in theory. But if the Germans had tried to build up their U-Boat force anywhere near that number before the war, history would have unfolded differently - that act alone would have triggered a war much earlier.

There was no realistic way to achieve those numbers.

[Sledgehammer427]

well, obviously, it would be that the "objective-driven" campaign will be a polished version of SH4's. I highly doubt they will go back to what they did in SH2, that was long ago and now things are totally different.

I'm looking forward to what they come up with. My only fear is that you are dispatched to various battles. I would like to see SH4's objective system, optimized for U-boats, like starting weather stations in the arctic. Or maybe having the choice between helping survivors of a sunken merchant, or leaving them stranded. I would like to see a difference between "reputation" and "renown." Reputation is for sailors, renown is for admirals. sink a BB, get a few hundred renown, help the sailors, earn a hundred reputation. the more reputation you earn, the easier the british may be on you, we can all agree it is easier to kill a cold-blooded captain, but if they can identify your sub, they may capture it, capture you, let you surrender, or let you await your trials at Nuremberg. your amount of british reputation would be kept secret, while your Kriegsmarine reputation will be shown. having a good mix between rep and renown allows you to get better crewmen, more renown lets you get sub upgrades, and more rep lets you get longer leave times if you so choose, maybe even let war correspondents on board

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The objectives were something I actually really liked in SH4. Sometimes captains were given special orders, but more often not. I don't know how adjustable those objectives were for the modders, but in Operation Monsun I've been ordered to go to different grids and patrol, then to another grid again, and then to do as I pleased until supplies were exhausted. That was an "objective-driven campaign" I could live with.

As long as it doesn't go back to the string of single mission levels that marred SH2, I can live with it.

Sadley I think it has returned to that. Listen to this paragraph from an article abour SHV

There is time before each mission to scout the battlefield to get an idea of the shorelines, objectives and possible escorts of your targets. Often, the escorts do not need to be sunk to successfully complete the mission. It is up to you whether you want to only sink the target, or pick off some other ships as well.

Now what dose that sound like to you? A scripted campaign.

Here is the article.
http://www.hookedgamers.com/pc/silen...ticle-551.html

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by WilhelmSchulz.

Now what dose that sound like to you? A scripted campaign.

I don't know what it sounds like but don't worry its not scripted as in SH2, and its more dynamic than in sh3/4.

[Sledgehammer427]

I don't know what it sounds like but don't worry its not scripted as in SH2, and its more dynamic than in sh3/4.

and now I have taken attention to SHV!
:rotfl:
this dynamic-ness has me on the edge of my nearly broken seat!

[difool2]

Originally Posted by WilhelmSchulz.

Now what dose that sound like to you? A scripted campaign.l

Now that's a dose of bad medicine that I really don't need.

Hope elanaiba is right and it isn't highly scripted...

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by difool2

Now that's a dose of bad medicine that I really don't need.

Hope elanaiba is right and it isn't highly scripted...

I hope he is right ...condsidering he is on the Dev team :rotfl:
@Wilhelm seriously, they are not going back to SH2 after the last two games.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

I don't know what it sounds like but don't worry its not scripted as in SH2, and its more dynamic than in sh3/4.

:rotfl: on me! When I read that my first thought was "Oh yeah? And you know this how?" It wasn't until then that I looked to see who wrote it.

Cheers, Dan. You, I trust.

[Safe-Keeper]

Now what dose that sound like to you?

Like single missions. We had single missions in SHIII, too. In addition to a campaign.

I'm undecided on a dynamic campaign. I'm happy with something like SH4, where you have the "go there and stay there for 24 hours, unless we give you some dynamic, historically correct objectives along the way". I liked Falcon 4.0 Allied Force's campaign, in which you actually had a 'true' war going on, with units and structures built, moved, destroyed and repaired. Problem with the campaign, in my experience, was that the AI was fairly stupid, requiring you to put many of the units under manual control and babysit them by telling them where to go (yes, apparently in Korea and the Balkans ordinary pilots has the authority to give orders to every single fighting unit in the theatre). Which brings me to the shortcoming of such a feature - the sheer amount of work you'd have to do to make the AI behave in a believable way, and balance the campaign so that the multitudes of possible actions don't bring around undesirable outcomes (for an extreme example, I'd be pretty upset if the AI lost the war for Germany in 1943).

On balance, not being a programmer of dynamic campaigns, I have to say something like F4AF would be nice, but in no way required. The impression that I'm playing a 'true' dynamic campaign is enough for me, and this impression can be brought about by subtle changes in scripts (such as D-Day happening slightly later or whatever if your side does well), SH3 Commander-ish immersion techniques, and SH4's dynamic orders and whatnot.

:rotfl: on me! When I read that my first thought was "Oh yeah? And you know this how?" It wasn't until then that I looked to see who wrote it.

I still don't know who the guy is, but "Location: Bucharest, Romania" is a quite strong hint for me :p .

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I still don't know who the guy is, but "Location: Bucharest, Romania" is a quite strong hint for me :p .

Lead developer (or something like that). We met him in Houston.

Dan on the right, with Jimbuna.