I'm concerned about game ballance on the American side of things.

[Aimbot]

I have to say I'm interested to try a sub sim of American exploits, as I know virtually nothing about it, but what little I do know seems to make for a poor video game.

1. American torpedos, particularly the Mark XIV, were extremely unreliable up until ~1943. There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule. The most famous proof of this was the Seawolf, which launched four Mark XIVs at the stationary and anchured Sagami Maru under ideal conditions and photographically recorded a 100% rate of falure. It was only when they resorted to the Mark X that they had any success. The odd dud just makes things tense, but If I have to worry about duds to that extent that's one realism setting I'll have in the "off" position.

2. Japanese strength was greatest early in the war, and America's was weakest. That of course was inverted by the end of the war. What we have here seems to me to be an inverse learning curve. Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...

[CCIP]

A fair point; but keep in mind that SHIV should counteract it with mission tasking and variety. Or I hope it will. I think it's unfair to say that the Americans were facing an enemy that was better at ASW early in the war - the Japanese did improve even if their resources decreased and there was plenty of new dangers.

Likewise, even in late war - areas around Japan would sure be deadly.

Meanwhile I think the game will be kept interesting with the new types of missions (photo recon/troop insertion/supply delivery/rescue) and different areas to go to.

Also, it appears there's a new "war patrol" mode as opposed to just a single/quick missions, which I'm sure might model larger operations without going into a yearly type of progression.

All in all, I'm not worried about this much. I mean it's natural to expect the enemy to be far more limited later in war if you play the winning side, but I don't expect them to be easier.

As far as torpedoes - can't comment, but I hope it will be a tweakable setting.

[Boris]

There will no doubt be a no-failure setting. And I'm sure the devs didn't make the failures quite as harsh as in real life.

[Steeltrap]

When it comes to duds etc, people tend to forget that the Yanks compensated somewhat by firing 2-3 torps at each target. Part of the issue for the game is that some players might expect to be able to rack up totally unrealistic kill/tonnage totals by firing a single torp at each ship encountered. It is a fact that multiple torps were fired at even quite small targets (say 3-4000t). So, even though a fleet boat had 6 bow and 4 stern tubes and plenty of reloads, that was off-set by the doctrine (and necessity given poor torp reliability) of firing 2-3 torps per target.

Worth noting that torpex came into the mix as well during the campaign, improving considerably the destructive power of US torps.

Reading 'Wahoo' by Dick O'Kane makes some of the tactics/issues pretty clear. They certainly didn't save their torps for the 'next encounter' as they might not have one (the Pacific is a mighty big place to cover, even hanging around known shipping lanes).

[hyperion2206]

When it comes to duds etc, people tend to forget that the Yanks compensated somewhat by firing 2-3 torps at each target. Part of the issue for the game is that some players might expect to be able to rack up totally unrealistic kill/tonnage totals by firing a single torp at each ship encountered. It is a fact that multiple torps were fired at even quite small targets (say 3-4000t). So, even though a fleet boat had 6 bow and 4 stern tubes and plenty of reloads, that was off-set by the doctrine (and necessity given poor torp reliability) of firing 2-3 torps per target.

Worth noting that torpex came into the mix as well during the campaign, improving considerably the destructive power of US torps.

Reading 'Wahoo' by Dick O'Kane makes some of the tactics/issues pretty clear. They certainly didn't save their torps for the 'next encounter' as they might not have one (the Pacific is a mighty big place to cover, even hanging around known shipping lanes).

As a U-Boat commander it will be quite difficult for me to 'waste" 2,3 or even more torpedos for even small ships.:arrgh!:

[Boris]

Well, if the failure rate is like it's supposed to be, I'll b happy to do it. I'll be angry if they all hit and blow up! :stare:

[AirborneTD]

There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule.
..

The Germans had to deal with more than an "ocasional dud". They just corrected their many torp problems sooner.

The US Pacific sub campaign has been a long favorite among software developers and gamers. I doubt UBI would invest in it if they thought it would make a poor video "game".

[hyperion2206]

There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule.
..
The Germans had to deal with more than an "ocasional dud". They just corrected their many torp problems sooner.

The US Pacific sub campaign has been a long favorite among software developers and gamers. I doubt UBI would invest in it if they thought it would make a poor video "game".

Yep, during the invasion of Norway German U-Boats could have sunk HMS Warspite 3 or 4 times if the torpedos would have worked. U-56 (Kapitänleutnant Zahn) could have sunk the Nelson if torpedos would not have prematurely detonated. And so on and so on.

[danoh]

If the torpedoes are true to life, then we can also use knowledge we have to compensate for the bad torpedoes.

American torpedoes at the start of the war had two problems: they ran deeper than set and the exploder was faulty when using impact rather than magnetic detonation. Samuel Elliot Morrison summarizes these faults on p. 495 of "The Two Ocean War."

"The first defect caused the torpedo to run ten feet deeper than set, usually so far und a ship's hull that the magnetic feature was not activated."

and "[the second defect, the impact firing pin] proved too fragile to stand up under a good, square, 90-degree hit; normally it would set off the charge only if the warhead hit a ship at an acute angle."

and finally, on page 496: "It was not until September 1943 that United States Submarines had dependable torpedoes."

If all this is accurately recreated in the game, then you should be able to compensate for problem 1 by shooting your magnetic torps on the surface, which would make them run 10 feet deeper, but still shallow enough to be triggered by the ship's magnetic field. The second problem can be overcome by shooting at acute angles.

[hyperion2206]

If the torpedoes are true to life, then we can also use knowledge we have to compensate for the bad torpedoes.

American torpedoes at the start of the war had two problems: they ran deeper than set and the exploder was faulty when using impact rather than magnetic detonation. Samuel Elliot Morrison summarizes these faults on p. 495 of "The Two Ocean War."

"The first defect caused the torpedo to run ten feet deeper than set, usually so far und a ship's hull that the magnetic feature was not activated."

and "[the second defect, the impact firing pin] proved too fragile to stand up under a good, square, 90-degree hit; normally it would set off the charge only if the warhead hit a ship at an acute angle."

and finally, on page 496: "It was not until September 1943 that United States Submarines had dependable torpedoes."

If all this is accurately recreated in the game, then you should be able to compensate for problem 1 by shooting your magnetic torps on the surface, which would make them run 10 feet deeper, but still shallow enough to be triggered by the ship's magnetic field. The second problem can be overcome by shooting at acute angles.

Or you jsut take the trustworthy Mark IX on board.;)

[Sailor Steve]

There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule.
..

The Germans had to deal with more than an "ocasional dud". They just corrected their many torp problems sooner.
Actually, they didn't correct it any sooner. German magnetic pistols were withdrawn from service in 1940, and not reinstated until December 1942.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_Notes.htm
http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

HMS Nelson escaped distaster on October 30, 1939 when three impact-fused torpedoes fired by U-56 all failed to explode.


Personally I welcome the prospect of massive failures, mainly because I like to role-play more than I like to game. I wish SHIII had the same realism levels.

[Torplexed]

Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...
Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games? History doesn't care about play-balance or steeper difficulty curves. Some of us just wish to re-live an little military history. U-Boats were fun, but since SH2 we've been doing that subject for six years now. Change of pace would be nice. :cool:

[Safe-Keeper]

Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games?No, he wrote that games that got easier as you went along make for poor gaming, which in a sense they do. On the other hand, there's some pleasure in it, too, struggling to get started and then seeing the enemy get driven back and your patrols get easier and easier.

[hyperion2206]

Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...
Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games? History doesn't care about play-balance or steeper difficulty curves. Some of us just wish to re-live an little military history. U-Boats were fun, but since SH2 we've been doing that subject for six years now. Change of pace would be nice. :cool:

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:

[AJ!]

Well this will make for some interesting gameplay.
Besides no matter how late in the war we get, the enemy wont get any easyer.:up:

[flintlock]

Part of the issue for the game is that some players might expect to be able to rack up totally unrealistic kill/tonnage totals by firing a single torp at each ship encountered.
Reminds me of the rampant posts by frustrated submariners and those stubborn C2s when SH3 was originally released. ;)

[Morts]

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:
TRUE:up:

[Egan]

The beauty of doing the Pac theatre, though, is that we will have a more varied diet of missions to undertake: Life-guard duties for downed pilots, photo recon and insertions (if the game info is accurate.) Not that U-boats were entirely limited to sinking shipping, of course, but we seldom see it in sub sims.

I can imagine that squeezing through a narrow, shallow and heavilly defended strait to take photos of some harbour or other is going to be pretty tense no matter what the date is. I doubt it is going to be a clever move to shoot everything that moves in a mission this time around, there will be other factors to take into acount. I can't wait. :up:

[flintlock]

I can't wait.
Some good points, and yes, that ever elusive release day. :)

[Aimbot]

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:
Sure, but he didn't fight from his Den and, should he have died in combat, he wouldn't have respawned. ;)

[Safe-Keeper]

SH3Gen sometimes told you to go recon neutral (and enemy?) harbours. It did have this tense atmosphere, even though I knew the neutrals wouldn't hurt me. Recon missions on enemy harbours - now there's a different thing entirely.

[THE_MASK]

I have to say I'm interested to try a sub sim of American exploits, as I know virtually nothing about it, but what little I do know seems to make for a poor video game.

1. American torpedos, particularly the Mark XIV, were extremely unreliable up until ~1943. There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule. The most famous proof of this was the Seawolf, which launched four Mark XIVs at the stationary and anchured Sagami Maru under ideal conditions and photographically recorded a 100% rate of falure. It was only when they resorted to the Mark X that they had any success. The odd dud just makes things tense, but If I have to worry about duds to that extent that's one realism setting I'll have in the "off" position.

2. Japanese strength was greatest early in the war, and America's was weakest. That of course was inverted by the end of the war. What we have here seems to me to be an inverse learning curve. Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...

Like SH3 there will be boxes to check/uncheck regarding realism i am sure 100%.
I am sure there will be a box that says enable realistic torpedo failures or something so you dont have to worry . Like SH3 it will be up to you if you want arcade or 100% realism or anything in between . This is a great feature .

[NEON DEON]

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:
Sure, but he didn't fight from his Den and, should he have died in combat, he wouldn't have respawned. ;)

:up:

And

If you play dead is dead you still have the adavantage of learning every thing from your mistakes where as real skippers were well dead.:p

[hyperion2206]

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl: Sure, but he didn't fight from his Den and, should he have died in combat, he wouldn't have respawned. ;)
:up:

And

If you play dead is dead you still have the adavantage of learning every thing from your mistakes where as real skippers were well dead.:p

To avoid that you'll have to behave like Ensign Parker for the first 3 missions, that should do the trick.:p

[Iron Budokan]

I was worried about this, too. But then I figured since I always play DiD it might not be so arcadish in the long run. Heck, maybe I won't ever live to see '45. (I'm a lousy kaleun, I'm sure I won't be any better as a skipper.) Anyway, I'm not looking forward to the waning months of the war gunning sampans and fishing boats, though I'm sure the game will still have good targets modeled for us.....

[Aimbot]

On the bright side...


I don't think Bernard will defect just to vex us...

[CCIP]

On the bright side...


I don't think Bernard will defect just to vex us...

No need, his distant American relative Ensign Parker has already been assigned to the Silent Service :88)

[GlobalExplorer]

SH3Gen sometimes told you to go recon neutral (and enemy?) harbours. It did have this tense atmosphere, even though I knew the neutrals wouldn't hurt me. Recon missions on enemy harbours - now there's a different thing entirely.

I am glad someone noticed that it does that ;)

I went to great lengths to get that type of "neutral port" - mission, like in "Das Boot" (supply in Vigo) or a fictional reconnaissance in swedish port.

Now there still that Gibraltar-breakthrough mission in the back of my head ..

Regarding concerns expressed in this threads: SHIV will be perfectly balanced through mods, I'm 100% sure. The interesting change is that the game will be very hard in the beginning, and getting easier later on - the exact opposite of the German U-Boat campaign. I say interesting because I prefer to play early war patrols, and they should be a real challenge for the Americans.

[danoh]

American torpedoes at the start of the war had two problems: they ran deeper than set and the exploder was faulty when using impact rather than magnetic detonation.

Reading up on the issue over the weekend, I found this paragraph (perhaps not the most authorative source) Time-Life's "War Under The Pacific" volume in their WWII series. P. 46 reads, in part

"What was not understood was that the magnetic field encasing a ship varied in shape depending on the circumstances. Near the Equator this magnetic envelope flattened out until it resemebled a thisk disc more than a hemisphere. Thus a torpedo would enter the magnetic field some distance from the side of the ship - where it would explode harmlessly."

So a third, widely reported problem - premature explosion of torpedoes - also existed.

I'm curious if the game will recreate this level of detail, or if the early-war Mark XIV torpedoes are simply very likely to be duds that bounce off the sides of ships.

[VipertheSniper]

I only hope it's not as frustrating, albeit realistic, as with SH1, where dud's and premature detonations were very much the rule with the dud torpedo setting on.

[Sailor Steve]

I only hope it's not as frustrating, albeit realistic, as with SH1, where dud's and premature detonations were very much the rule with the dud torpedo setting on.
I hope it is that realistic and frustrating, but only at the highest levels. Of course it should be an option.

[Camaero]

I would love it (although in a very frustrating way) if I could come back from patrols with 0 ships sunk due to faulty torps.

[joea]

I only hope it's not as frustrating, albeit realistic, as with SH1, where dud's and premature detonations were very much the rule with the dud torpedo setting on. I hope it is that realistic and frustrating, but only at the highest levels. Of course it should be an option.

Exactly, it MUST be an option, and thus no need to "dumb" it down if the option is on.

[VipertheSniper]

I only hope it's not as frustrating, albeit realistic, as with SH1, where dud's and premature detonations were very much the rule with the dud torpedo setting on.
I hope it is that realistic and frustrating, but only at the highest levels. Of course it should be an option.

That would only be the case if we didn't know how to counter the problems with the torpedoes in early war.

I've once played the whole campaign in SH1 with everything on full realism, but it's just not the same having all the knowledge the skippers didn't have as to why their torps didn't hit, failed to explode or exploded prematurely. Sure one can pretend to not have the knowledge, but I'm sure it'll only take 1 mission to make you use your knowledge tho.

[hyperion2206]

I only hope it's not as frustrating, albeit realistic, as with SH1, where dud's and premature detonations were very much the rule with the dud torpedo setting on. I hope it is that realistic and frustrating, but only at the highest levels. Of course it should be an option.

I don't think that they will include such an option, I wouldn't. I think that even the people who like to play with 100% realism would get quite annoyed if 90% of their torpedoes would be duds. I know that some of us would like to have that, but they're too few. Just my 2 cents.

[Sailor Steve]

Not me...I'm good at pretending.:p :rotfl:

No offence or argument intended; I really do like having those options, and I'm frustrated that SHIII made it too easy in the early war.

[Morts]

I'm good at pretending.:p :rotfl:



hahahaha:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Barkhorn1x]

Options are good. :rock:

Just make it an option and if you don't like it then don't use it.

Barkhorn.

[difool2]

I would love it (although in a very frustrating way) if I could come back from patrols with 0 ships sunk due to faulty torps.
...only to get a warning from ComSubPac that you aren't sinking enough ships. Got
that once in SH1 after plugging 10 torps (about half duds) into the side of a Yamato
class BB and not sinking her. Hmm enemy's biggest boat laid up in drydock for 6+
months, and that's a bad thing? :damn:

[Sailor Steve]

I would love it (although in a very frustrating way) if I could come back from patrols with 0 ships sunk due to faulty torps.
...only to get a warning from ComSubPac that you aren't sinking enough ships. Got
that once in SH1 after plugging 10 torps (about half duds) into the side of a Yamato
class BB and not sinking her. Hmm enemy's biggest boat laid up in drydock for 6+
months, and that's a bad thing? :damn:
1) Our intelligence from Japan is very poor; we have no proof of what you claim.

2) Be more agressive!
:rotfl:

[Aimbot]

I just realized something else. The Gato is HUGE. I think it's about 50 feet longer than the IX. Are there any classes more in line with the VII.

[Barkhorn1x]

I just realized something else. The Gato is HUGE. I think it's about 50 feet longer than the IX. Are there any classes more in line with the VII.

Not in the US Navy my friend.


;)

Barkhorn.

[Torplexed]

I just realized something else. The Gato is HUGE. I think it's about 50 feet longer than the IX. Are there any classes more in line with the VII.
Not in the US Navy my friend.
;)

Barkhorn.
Aye! If you're gonna be crossing half the Pacific to get to a patrol area, you're gonna want that extra fifty feet. It contains two more diesel engines and a lot of extra fuel. :cool:

[Aimbot]

Jesus, I know we like things big, but 300 feet is pushing it. :-?

[Torplexed]

Jesus, I know we like things big, but 300 feet is pushing it. :-?

About par for the course for the Pacific. The contemporary Japanese fleet subs were as big, if not bigger.

[Tigrone]

I just realized something else. The Gato is HUGE. I think it's about 50 feet longer than the IX. Are there any classes more in line with the VII.

The S-boat class is kind'a like an older verison of the VII.

[THE_MASK]

Bad torpedoes

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3152/571024no0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[LukeFF]

Bad torpedoes

Dud torpedoes. :p

[Sgian Dubh]

Well, I just pre-ordered and I am really looking forward to this.

I have been waiting since the original Silent Hunter for a return to the Pacific. Ahh, the hours spent waiting near Truk for some really juicy targets, or perhaps a warship to show up. Basking in the South Pacific sun, Hula girls, submarines that were actually designed to be lived-in, Hula girls, fleet operations (please, please, please), Hula girls, and Hula girls.

The pacific has always been my preferred theater of operations.

The variability of mission tasking (if present) will really make this a great sim. If someone only wants to sink ships, and nothing else will do - then I would venture to say "Stick with SHIII.".

And, I have to admit, that it will be nice to be going about a campaign career knowing that there is a reasonable chance of making it through the entire war;)

I like SHIII, but it is a little depressing knowing that after a certain point you are really in for it. That you are holding off the inevitable, so to speak.

Did I mention I am looking forward to Hula girls?:D

I will say that I am *very* concerned about rumors that SHIV has been "dumbed down" from SHIII. But I will hope for the best....