Forced retirement (merged)

[jrlans]

Just after getting my new Gato class boat and being transfered from CompacSW to Peral my very next patrol no matter what i do, no matter how much i sink (and ive had patrols of 150k of tonage) I get told that they are phasing out my class (/boggle, sence its 42 and Gato classes are the best of the best at this time) and making room for better more agresive comanders . . . any help would be apprciated i dont realy want to have to start a new carrer

[clayton]

Since we start out in early 44, I wonder if anyone could even get to 1945 with forced retirement. :hmm:

[jrlans]

there anyway to stop from being retired and actualy fight out the whole war? If not how boring and yet something else that needs to be modded and changed

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, early retirment for you man. You already sound like you on the edge. A nice desk job for you in Pearl sound about right;)

[Deep6]

Probably a feature by the programmers to keep you from getting super crews. Send you out to sale bonds rather than letting you put your uber crew up against the not so hot AI crewed ships.

[TheSatyr]

Most sub captains were limited to making 5-6 patrols and then got sent back to the states for new construction, or a desk job. War bond tours were highly unlikely...after all it was the Silent Service and the Sub Service wouldn't want too many details getting out about how they operated.

The luckier ones got staff jobs with the various Sub Squadrons...still a desk job but one where you at least still got to hang around Subs.

[Takao]

Well, it would be nice to go to new construction and come back about a year later. Once the boat has been built, commissioned, fully tested, and crew trained.

The easy way around the uber crews would have be to do it historically. US subs lost an average of 15%-20% of their crews going to another boat, new construction, etc.

If the forced retirement is that quick, I'm starting my next career in 1943-44. That way I can have the new boat with all the bells and whistles. That way I won't lose my Gato right after I get it. That would be a pisser!

[TheSatyr]

I thought you could use renown to avoid getting "retired"? I haven't really played SH4 too much yet. Besides...the asw a/c seem to have it in for me and I haven't lived long enough to make it to retirement...*lol*

[Takao]

Like you, TheSatyr, I haven't played long enough yet to find out. Started out from the beginning of the war at Pearl. I'm still on my first war patrol, trying to do an end run on a Japanese carrier task force. There are two Kates and one Zero on patrol that keep me diving, thus its taken a most of the day to just come broadside to the task force. Not mentioning a pesky Mavis flying out of Japan that drops in every few hours.

I don't know the cost of renown it takes to keep a boat. Or, if its a once and done deal, ie. using your renown to buy one more patrol. Or if its an excuse to keep the player from getting to much renown. The Type XXI in SHIII was, what 33,000. What's a Gato or Balao going for?

As for the manual...it was distressingly vague or just plain wrong most of the time for me to trust it. Most of what I have learned about SHIV have been from messageboards like this one, and not from the manual.

So, only time will tell...

[Grell]

That's rather unsettling, I mean who want's to have just 5 or 6 patrols? The more the merrier.

Regrads,

Grell

[joea]

Well if you want a game not a sim, go ahead and mod it for a wartime career.

[OneTinSoldier]

Well if you want a game not a sim, go ahead and mod it for a wartime career.
I think what's being asked for here is a sim that's fun without being too constrictive. Playing the entire war wouldn't mean that you are no longer simulating the job of being a sub commander. There is no need to try and belittle folks by making them feel like they are suddenly gamers instead of simmers.

[hova311]

It's got to be a BUG cause I had the SAME EXACT senerio. The devs would be stupied to force the player out of a career after 5 patrols. And if other people are being retired with the exact same conditions then it's probably a bug. I was told your doing a good job here's a GATO in Pearl then after my first mission with my new ship they say your retired and so is your ship.

[ccruner13]

imo 1.1 made it so we start with super crews...i ran a career for quite a while but i dontremember how many patrols i made. 1.1 came so i started over. i got a gato for my porpoise and then it got destroyed and they gave me a gar. the only crew you lose is deck watchmen who are really easily replaced. youd think some would get promoted out of your boat too?

[Anachronous]

I hear that in patch 1.2, when you die, your game uninstalls and your Disk explodes! Now thats realism!

[Strikor]

In my eyes it's simply another realism setting. Some may want a realistic career length while others may want to go all the way from '41 to '45 just like not everyone wants to use auto TDC. We're all (hopefully) paying customers and should get the most enjoyment out of the product as we can.

Realism debate aside, this is one of several things I've been trying to find with no success while digging through the game files. It's either in some place I haven't thought to look or something that isn't viewable by wordpad.

[hova311]

Like I said it's a bug you don't hear of people retiring from Manila or Jawa just Pearl after they get a Gato.

[Iron Budokan]

I hear that in patch 1.2, when you die, your game uninstalls and your Disk explodes! Now thats realism!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Galanti]

Realism debate aside, this is one of several things I've been trying to find with no success while digging through the game files. It's either in some place I haven't thought to look or something that isn't viewable by wordpad.

Yeah, me neither. Still have to believe that while the behavior itself is harcoded, the paramters (5 patrols, renown to buy back patrols) probably aren't and must be tweakable.

Under [renown] in Main, there is a EndCareer (or something) that defaults to -5000. Maybe this is it, or maybe at that point (-5000 renown) you are automiatically retired in disgrace! I haven't gotten to 5 patrols yet so haven't been able to fart around with this.

[Captain_Jack]

It's got to be a BUG cause I had the SAME EXACT senerio. The devs would be stupied to force the player out of a career after 5 patrols. And if other people are being retired with the exact same conditions then it's probably a bug. I was told your doing a good job here's a GATO in Pearl then after my first mission with my new ship they say your retired and so is your ship.


Its not a bug. It is an intended feature to end a career after 5 or so patrols. It is even stated as such in the README file.

The developers are trying to simulate a realistic career length. US Sub captians did not have commands for the entire war.

But I guess a better option would have been to offer a choice in the game settings between "Realistic Career Length" or Not.

[Seadogs]

It's got to be a BUG cause I had the SAME EXACT senerio. The devs would be stupied to force the player out of a career after 5 patrols. And if other people are being retired with the exact same conditions then it's probably a bug. I was told your doing a good job here's a GATO in Pearl then after my first mission with my new ship they say your retired and so is your ship.


Its not a bug. It is an intended feature to end a career after 5 or so patrols. It is even stated as such in the README file.

The developers are trying to simulate a realistic career length. US Sub captians did not have commands for the entire war.

But I guess a better option would have been to offer a choice in the game settings between "Realistic Career Length" or Not.

QFT- however I think the quest for realism could have been used elsewhere. Each to thier own.

[AVGWarhawk]

As most have stated, 5-6 patrols then a desk job. It adds a bit of realism. Besides, you get the chance to use other submarines at different start points. Like I'm in the Baleo out of Manilla. I would like to try the S class on my next patrol when I start it. Also, how long do you stay out? I'm on my first patrol going into week three with it. Probably be out for another 3 weeks.

[hova311]

Put it this way has ANY1 been forced to retire? Who was based someplace else other than Pearl? Who didn't just recieve the GATO?

[tedhealy]

From the readme

3.4.4 Career length and Time between patrols
Silent Hunter 4 simulates the career of a captain according to real practices of the US Submarine Force of the period. Depending on your performance you can expect your career to last between 5 and 8 patrols. Of course, real silly results such as sinking your own capital ships will lead to a quick and timely termination of your command.

The time spent in base between patrols, it will generally be in the range of 2 or 3 weeks:
a. Returning home with a damaged submarine may lead to longer refit times (and time spent in base) due to repairs that need to be performed.
b. Occasionally your submarine may undergo a longer refit which will bring upgrades but take long to complete, thus lengthening the time spent in base.
e. If you are selected to command another submarine, training with the new crew will delay the next patrol by at least a few weeks.

[Anachronous]

Of all the things to Simulate, they simulate career length lol. When there so much else that is far from simulated.

[tedhealy]

Personally, I like that they simulate this, but I understand why others don't. It definitely should have been an option.

[Rykaird]

As most have stated, 5-6 patrols then a desk job. It adds a bit of realism. Besides, you get the chance to use other submarines at different start points. Like I'm in the Baleo out of Manilla. I would like to try the S class on my next patrol when I start it. Also, how long do you stay out? I'm on my first patrol going into week three with it. Probably be out for another 3 weeks.

It may add a bit of realism, but I approach the SH series like an RPG. I don't want a disposable commander. After I've bonded with the character over a bunch of patrols and multiple years of war, like in SHIII, every strategic choice takes on a heightened level of importance - especially if you play DID ("dead is dead") like I do.

That's why in SHIII I'll go into Scapa on a first or second patrol. I've got nothing to lose, I haven't invested anything in the character. But would I go into Scapa in 1942 with a Kaleun I started the war with in 1939? No freaking way. Getting pounced on by a bunch of destroyers and being thoroughly depth charged takes on a new level of meaning if you've played a hundred hours with that character in DID mode.

This will have to be modded. If this mechanic is real, its a major gamebreaker for me.

[gord96]

As most have stated, 5-6 patrols then a desk job. It adds a bit of realism. Besides, you get the chance to use other submarines at different start points. Like I'm in the Baleo out of Manilla. I would like to try the S class on my next patrol when I start it. Also, how long do you stay out? I'm on my first patrol going into week three with it. Probably be out for another 3 weeks.

It may add a bit of realism, but I approach the SH series like an RPG. I don't want a disposable commander. After I've bonded with the character over a bunch of patrols and multiple years of war, like in SHIII, every strategic choice takes on a heightened level of importance - especially if you play DID ("dead is dead") like I do.

That's why in SHIII I'll go into Scapa on a first or second patrol. I've got nothing to lose, I haven't invested anything in the character. But would I go into Scapa in 1942 with a Kaleun I started the war with in 1939? No freaking way. Getting pounced on by a bunch of destroyers and being thoroughly depth charged takes on a new level of meaning if you've played a hundred hours with that character in DID mode.

This will have to be modded. If this mechanic is real, its a major gamebreaker for me.

I agree. I am one to get attached to one boat. I like to take it as far as I can.

Then again as said earlier, the patrols in SH4 seem to last 4-8 weeks so you are really out there a long time. In SH3 the patrols seem shorter, unless you are headed across the Atlantic.

[Galanti]

Ditto for me, I like realism as much as the next guy, but this is a major roleplaying killer for me.

I will keep looking through the files. As I mentioned some posts above, hopefully we can find the trigger that asks if you want to 'buy' back into the war and lower to required renown.

[Egan]

Ther doesn't seem to be any bug here what so ever. Most sub skippers lasted at most 5 -8 patrols before being moved on. The USN aproach to their commanders was totally different to the German attitude, Particulary when you take into account the length of US war patrols in comparison. Sailing from Pearl to Empire waters was longer than a German boat heading to the East coast of the US during drumbeat except it was virtually every time they left port. It is works as designed as far as I can tell and it is historically accurate. Good.

As for being dismissed. There were a large number of US skippers dismissed during the war for not being agressive enough as well as for being incompetant. It was a major problem, compounded by the fact that the USN Sub force leadership was no where near as good at what they did as the KM equivalent. They improved, though, as did the quality of the skippers as those who were simply not up to the job were replaced by men who had served as officers on other boats and had learned how to fight a war in submarines.

Sh3 needed Shcommander before we got a feature like this. I for one am delighted that we got it straight of the bat.

[gord96]

when i think about it more the idea is kinda cool. makes you slow down and enjoy each patrol a bit more.

[Lawndart]

Taking control away from a player is a cardinal sin, especially if it is implied intuitively that they can keep going... This applies to gameplay, not story telling.

If I'm going to invest time in learning my crews names, developing their skills, and expecting to see improvements in their abilities I want to have a reasonable amount of time to do so. This also implies a lengthy, dramatic experience. Otherwise why bother with all the stats, medals, etc. Not to mention the DYNAMIC campaign engine! For only 5-8 missions.

If my patrol is limited to 5... That’s a max of about 130 torpedoes, maybe sinking 25-30 targets per career? Oh yeah that’s pretty real! But that’s not what I signed up for. Reply value is important, but not at the expense of the first play experience.

I'll bet you that there is some really ugly issues or major unbalancing that happens if a career goes on for too long that they are still sorting out.

After all not one single feature in this game works as advertised, not a single thing, let’s not make even more assumptions that the developers are super geniuses and make stuff up to support some wild assumptions.

[ParaB]

IMO this is simply the single worst decision made by the dev team in SH4.

Of course it's unrealistic, but I WANT to start a career right after Pearl Harbour, battle through the difficult early war period with torpedo failures and japanese airpower at its height, see the allies pushed back to Australia, then participate in the counteroffensive, get new and better subs, equipment and torpedoes, grinding forward slowly and finally end the war hunting for the last remnants of the imperial fleet in the Inland Sea.

It's all about motivation.

:nope:

[Egan]

They can't win, can they? Either it's not realistic enough or it's too realistic. After all, it is supposed to be a simulator. Part of that is the career length. Richard o Kane doesn't seem to have any problem working with this with the story telling in his books, I don't either.

I think it's one of the best decisions they made. They reacted to SHcommander and made something better. :up:

You are right: it's all about motivation.

[gord96]

it is just annoying is all. if this is a realism thing there should be an option to turn it off. I can care less about realism (i play at 23% realism), I just really don't want to lose my boat.

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

I'll bet you that there is some really ugly issues or major unbalancing that happens if a career goes on for too long that they are still sorting out.


No doubt the player will have single handedly sunk half the Japanese ships in existence by the end of 1945.

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

Personally, I like that they simulate this, but I understand why others don't. It definitely should have been an option.

Indeed, optionally being the key word. I like the idea of it, but I also like the idea of working through the entire war with progressively better boats.

[Lawndart]

Richard o Kane doesn't seem to have any problem working with this with the story telling in his books, I don't either.

Thats right, you just proved my point, Richard is a story teller, not a designer. When you are in control of telling a story you control the entire experaince, lead ups, plots, spirals, drama, character development, emotion, etc.

In a game you have to at the very make the player belive he has some degree of control of those things through interactions, and also reward them for over comming certain criteria...

It really is prefrence but you have the option to retire every time you exist the game, you can impose this reality for your own idea of enjoyment. Forcing someone who has a diffrent idea, when its implied, even if by previous versions is a little lopsided.

SHcommander was/is awsome... because it had options! :D

I don't mean to be abrasive but I just like the game a lot and really want to have as much fun as I did with SH3...

[malkuth74]

Don't like the feature. Liked How SHIII was done. Its not real life. But to make everyone happy this is the way I think they should of done it.

after 4-5 missions you have the choice to Spend Renown (1000) to keep your commision. After another 3 you have to spend (2000) to keep it. Etc.

That way for you Realism buffs you get your 4 missions. The rest of us get what we want if we earn it (IE YOU NEED RENOWN).

Simple.

You realism folks need to chill a little. Not everyone that plays SH games is into realism. Thats why the devs was Suppose to make the game appeal to everyone.

[hova311]

I think we are all missing the point. It is a bug because it only happens after the player accepts the GATO in Pearl Harbour. Nobody else has said they have been forced to retire other than after doing as stated above.

[9th_cow]

I think we are all missing the point. It is a bug because it only happens after the player accepts the GATO in Pearl Harbour. Nobody else has said they have been forced to retire other than after doing as stated above.

possibly intentional aswell.
has anyone checked the end date of theyre patrol and the start date of theyre service with the new ship ?

maybe you spend so much time training that it simply accerlerates your dismissal.
still when they say you can continue to fight at sea when you have enough renown, its a litle dissapointing that you cant.

[Grunt]

I finished my 4th patrol with decent tonnage, then forced to retire?!

I somehow think these nagging issues were not a problem with SH3.

SH4 seems VERY "beta" and merely a modded version of SH3.

So many small quirks take all the fun out of this game.

Just when you think it cant get worse, pow, you find another kink in the works.

There is a difference between a game that offers a steep learning curve, and one that is little more then an exercise in frustration.

The Dev's should be ashamed of themselves, as we paid good money for a game that we thought would be a logical progression from SH3.

What we got was the devolution away from what made us appreciate SH3...and a bug filled one at that!

[Tigrone]

7 or 8 patrols was not unusual, and the early war skippers almost all returned within a year with a new boat for a second tour. Hiram Cassedy of Searaven and Trigrone made some 8 patrols on Searavin, 42-43, then after a year's break was back with Tigrone in 44-45. Early career ending is not a lot of fun. I mean, it might be the strict average, but the best skippers are not average, and it's not fun. It needs to be easier to make say 9 patrols, then transition for 3 to 6 months and be back with a new boat. It definitely ought to be possible for an average player to have a career of 2 or 3 tours of about 6 to 9 patrols each. That should take most anyone from Dec'41 to Aug'45.

[LuisCamoes]

I think we are all missing the point. It is a bug because it only happens after the player accepts the GATO in Pearl Harbour. Nobody else has said they have been forced to retire other than after doing as stated above.

I think youve missed the point m8, whoever posted the readme excerpt please post again for all the people who dont like to beleive the readme :roll:

[DJSatane]

Well if you want a game not a sim, go ahead and mod it for a wartime career.

Hey why dont we uninstall when we die first time while we are it. That must be the way you play it. right...

[DaMaGe007]

I hope for a *realistic career lenth* option when starting a career, I would like to do the whole war aswell as realistic careers.

Lets hope the devs are watching and we can have the best of both worlds.

Options FTW !

[Galanti]

I think by now it's clear that it's no accident that some skippers are forced into early retirment. It's by design and we can debate the wisdom of this particular concession to reality while others were neglected all day long.

What appears to be pooched is that it's happening to those who choose a Gato out of Pearl. Can we get more verification on this? Also, can you post some career data, such as your total renown, tonnage, rank, etc.

Also, has anyone ever had the option to buy their way back in by spending renown, as per Neals preview (Note: the readme says nothing about this part).

Finally, as a shot in the dark, go to your data\config\main.cfg and change EndCampaign=-5000 to something off the charts like -100000000000. It could be the game is thinking you've lost your ship and is penalizing you. The penalty for losing your ship or sinking a friendly is -5000 which is curiously what the threshhold for ending a career is set to.:o

[Lukemb]

I have done 3 patrols with the USS Triton (Tambor class) and 3 with the USS Drum (Gato class - accepted in Pearl Harbor).

I'm heading for my 7th patrol and no early retirement for now.

But probably this will be my last one... :cry:

[Spectre-63]

I hear that in patch 1.2, when you die, your game uninstalls and your Disk explodes! Now thats realism!

You think that's bad....just wait and see what happens to the player! :huh: :lol:

[joea]

I finished my 4th patrol with decent tonnage, then forced to retire?!

I somehow think these nagging issues were not a problem with SH3.

SH4 seems VERY "beta" and merely a modded version of SH3.

So many small quirks take all the fun out of this game.

Just when you think it cant get worse, pow, you find another kink in the works.

There is a difference between a game that offers a steep learning curve, and one that is little more then an exercise in frustration.

The Dev's should be ashamed of themselves, as we paid good money for a game that we thought would be a logical progression from SH3.

What we got was the devolution away from what made us appreciate SH3...and a bug filled one at that!

Jeez, this is not a bug but a design feature, in SH3 you could play from 1939-1945 if you wanted!!!! Retirement was possible with SH3 Commander but was optional. Therein lies the problem, I gather you can't choose a realistic career length or not.

[Galanti]

I have done 3 patrols with the USS Triton (Tambor class) and 3 with the USS Drum (Gato class - accepted in Pearl Harbor).

I'm heading for my 7th patrol and no early retirement for now.

But probably this will be my last one... :cry:

Lukemb, what's your renown & rank?

[Lukemb]

I have done 3 patrols with the USS Triton (Tambor class) and 3 with the USS Drum (Gato class - accepted in Pearl Harbor).

I'm heading for my 7th patrol and no early retirement for now.

But probably this will be my last one... :cry:
Lukemb, what's your renown & rank?
I finished my first career after 8 patrols, I have done 3 patrols with the USS Triton (Tambor class), 4 with the USS Drum (Gato class - accepted in Pearl Harbor) and my 8th and last patrol with USS Balao - accepted in Brisbane).

Before sailing for my 8th and last patrol I was still a Lt.Cmdr. and I had around 18,000 renown. With my last patrol my renown was probably going around 21,000.

[Lukemb]

A final thought...

If you check this file CareerTrack.upc in the savedgames folder (in C:\Documents and Settings\...\My Documents\SH4\data\cfg) you can check your current Rating value, I guess that if you have a high rating you will have the chance to do more patrols (my final rating was 14).

[FAC257]

A little more info for ya..

I just finished my first campaign by forced retirement. I had just returned from my 10th war patrol which was also my first time out in the new Balao. Based out of Brisbane the whole campaign after leaving the Phillipines.

During this last mission I finally ran into a large task force and managed to sink a Hiryu Fleet Carrier. Upon returning to Brisbane it wouldn't let me end the patrol. I had to sail around to Freemantle to dock. The next screen awarded me the Medal of Valor and the next screen gave me the boot out of the Navy.

Going into the 10th war patrol I had 240,000+ tonnage from 70 ships sunk.

I can go along with the realisitic carrier length idea but there might be a better way to tie it all together. It would have been nice to get a message letting me know that I was to report to Freemantle. Upon return to Brisbane after sinking the carrier and finding I couldn't end the mission, I ended up goose chase sailing all the way up to Pearl, back down to Brisbane and then by shear luck I tried Freemantle next.

Now I might be missing this somewhere but I also couldn't find anywhere after getting the boot that I could go and see how my captain and crew stacked up in the tonnage totals for the campaign.

[FAC257]

BTW Hi Guys!

That was my official first post. Been a lurker here on a daily bases for years through Dangerous Waters, SHIII and I think even the Sub Command days. Finally decide to speak up.

[joea]

I finished my 4th patrol with decent tonnage, then forced to retire?!



The Dev's should be ashamed of themselves, as we paid good money for a game that we thought would be a logical progression from SH3.

What we got was the devolution away from what made us appreciate SH3...and a bug filled one at that!

Ummm have you read any of the thread? It was done like that in real life. This was a progression from SH3, where the modding community had to add the capability to have realistic carreer lengths with SH3 Commander. Now it's added and you think it's a bug. :nope:

[perisher]

The only unrealistic thing about the so called "short career" is that the game presents many more targets than real life would have done, thus patrols last weeks rather than months and so careers end sooner. Real patrols lasted for 90 days or more, between patrols were repairs, refits, leave, training, trials of new equipment. It would be unusual for a boat to complete more than 3 patrols in a year. 5 or 6 patrols would take over 2 years and a skipper with that kind of accrued experience was of far more use in a staff job than in a boat. That is reality.

Maybe a better balance would be for a little more realism to creep into the game. Instead of a skipper taking over a new boat with only a few days in between commands, it would be better if taking a new boat meant a delay of several months.

We could use a SH4 Commander, to improve the between patrol aspects of a submarine captain's career, if anyone wants to try it. :-?

[FAC257]

>>>>>It would be unusual for a boat to complete more than 3 patrols in a year. 5 or 6 patrols would take over 2 years....<<<<<

Well maybe there in lies an easy or at least usable alternative. There's nothing making it mandatory to return to base after completeing all the patrol objectives. If I can reasonably expect to get 10 war patrols or so a campaign like I just did why not stay out for 3 or more months before ending the mission? You could probably come close to making it through the entire war with 9 or 10 patrols depending on the time that goes by between patrols while docked.

[swash]

Just after getting my new Gato class boat and being transfered from CompacSW to Pearl my very next patrol no matter what i do, no matter how much i sink (and ive had patrols of 150k of tonage) I get told that they are phasing out my class (/boggle, sence its 42 and Gato classes are the best of the best at this time) and making room for better more agresive comanders . . . any help would be apprciated i dont realy want to have to start a new carrer

You'll have to start a new career.

I had this happen my very first career. After my 3rd patrol in an S class, I was given the choice for a new boat, a Gato and transfered to Pearl.

After that one patrol, I was retired and confused about them mentioning "phasing out" my class since I'd just gotten the new Gato and only had one patrol in it.

However, I noticed the submarine number mentioned in the retirement message was S-31. That was the hull number of the S class boat I'd had on my first 3 patrols, not the new Gato.

Retiring me after 4 patrols I can understand, but phasing out the Gato in 1942 sounds like a bug at least in the message text.

A career length option would be great.

[THE_MASK]

If you want longer game play career time then why not TC slower . It would be far more rewarding when you find something . Running all over the place at high TC and finishing a patrol in a couple of hours doesnt souns like fun .

[richoahu]

don't end your patrols ;-)

just re arm and re fuel and go on out. they will keep giving you area's to patrol IIRC. i know they keep giving me areas even when i am out of ammo, i just have never choose the "refit" i always choose the end partol.

also, to the poster that said you got sent on a wild goose chase because they changed your "home". everytime i have had my "home" port changed they had sent me a message saying so. like when manila got captured they sent a message saying where i had to go next.

[perisher]

Realism is, complete your mission and expend your torpedoes, then go home. The game is unrealistic because it gives too many contacts so you get through your fish too quickly. However it is a game and a patrol with no contacts, while realistic, would be boring.

[perisher]

A further point on this subject. Unless in command on war breaking out, a submarine skipper would have, in addition to his own patrols as skipper, patrols as XO and possibly in other officer billets, before he started to rack up his own patrols. All patrols would have been a serious strain on the nerves, just how many could a man take?

[Tarl]

It happens other places also. Started in Pearl. I evnetually got offered a NEW boat, took a Balao and got stationed in Brisbane. Had a new shiny sub, AWESOME!!

Went out on a mission, sank 8 ships, repectable tonnage, accomplished all THREE (3) missions. Was out of torps. Returned to Brisbane, could not end the mission so travelled to Pearl. Could not end the mission. So, did a refit, went out, again expended all torps, sank more ships went back to Brisbane. Unable to end mission. Travelled around Australia and docked at Freemantle. Got the option to "end mission" and dock. Once I docked I received a medal, good job but was told I'm old and so is my BOAT (a Balao) and was RETIRED!

This was my 11th patrol total since the beginning of the war.

This is NOT a bug? I want to play quite a few more missions with a Balao class sub, NOT be retired!! :(

[Grunt]

How dare you not swear that SH4 is perfect in every way?

Didnt you read the forum rules? Undocumented features are to be praised!

This silly concept of "having fun in my balao" is clearly not in keeping with the decorum here, so clean up your act or I shall accuse you of being a nagging troll!

Just kidding, I agree the forced retirement problem is the reason I dont play SH4 anymore.

[joea]

Undocumented features are to be praised!



Just kidding, I agree the forced retirement problem is the reason I dont play SH4 anymore.

They are if they are based on history, or have you forgotten how many people were happy to have this feature in SH3 Commander? :stare:

[AVGWarhawk]

Realism is, complete your mission and expend your torpedoes, then go home. The game is unrealistic because it gives too many contacts so you get through your fish too quickly. However it is a game and a patrol with no contacts, while realistic, would be boring.

I play with the no map update selected. I also use the less radio traffic mod for the clipboard issue. Contacts are much less, but when you do find the singleton it is very exciting because it has been a day or two since finding a target. A convoy is more the better when found. Anyway, with these two options, I'm out for weeks on end hunting. It is a bit more challenging. To me, shooting fish in a barrell is not fun. In essence, it is not really boring not having any map updates, it is a taste of real happenings while on patrol. It is all in how you like to play.

Here is my thought on the career ending after X amount of patrols. Say you get dropped in 43', simply continue your career in 43' with a better sub and a green crew.

[FAC257]

>>>> ...also, to the poster that said you got sent on a wild goose chase because they changed your "home". everytime i have had my "home" port changed they had sent me a message saying so. like when manila got captured they sent a message saying where i had to go next. <<<<

Normally that's very true. I've had two different occasions while based out of Brisbane where there were't any messages telling me I had to report to somewhere else. The first was earlier in the campaign after returning to Brisbane and not being able to end the patrol I got lucky on the first guess and went to Pearl where my sub had some field mods and then I transferred back to Brisbane. The second was this last patrol after sinking the carrier.

To be sure about this I just went through the logs from my saved games just after these incidents and there are no orders telling me that this is what I was supposed to do. No biggy now that I've run into it and I'll be more attuned as to the best port choices to sail to next time.



>>>> I play with the no map update selected. I also use the less radio traffic mod for the clipboard issue.<<<<

Been using the radio traffic mod all along and just now started a campaign with all the boxes checked except exterior views. Also planning on staying out longer (3 -4 mths) on each patrol. This completely changed the feel of the first war patrol in a good way.

No all I have to do is get better at calculating target speeds. So far all I managed to do is to hit one small freighter with two torpedos and she was still floating as I had to sail away and I've been out for over a month already. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

>>>> I play with the no map update selected. I also use the less radio traffic mod for the clipboard issue.<<<<

Been using the radio traffic mod all along and just now started a campaign with all the boxes checked except exterior views. Also planning on staying out longer (3 -4 mths) on each patrol. This completely changed the feel of the first war patrol in a good way.

No all I have to do is get better at calculating target speeds. So far all I managed to do is to hit one small freighter with two torpedos and she was still floating as I had to sail away and I've been out for over a month already.




Yes, it does change the feel. A few patrols skippers really did come back with all their fish (towards the end of the war). The most I have gone is 4 days without a contact. When I do find one, I savor the moment. It seems you can complete your missions because you are not stopping every 2nm for another convoy. Patrols are about 30-40 days for me. I like this type game play.

Speed calculation is the hardest and the top of the list that can ruin a how sinking:yep: . Practice make perfect. The torps are free so fire away!

[perisher]

don't end your patrols ;-)

just re arm and re fuel and go on out.

Have you heard the scuttlebutt in the bar at the Royal Hawaiian? They say, "Don't ship out with richoahu, you never get shore leave!":lol:

[Lognoreng]

For christ sake. Did my first (i think) mission with the balao class. Had a great patrol. Completed the mission, also refitted my fish, and went out hunting again. Going back to my home port, but could not end. So i refueled and sailed over to the other part of Australia. I could end there. GREAT! i thought, time for some serious medal giving and promotings. I was also awared some honor medal thingie. Looks like a good one =). Misson stats showed 2 Battleships and 15! Merchants sunk. For a tonnage of rougly 77 000. However i was retired along with my ship due to not so good performance. I sank more on 1 patrol than all the others on the top aces done from scratch. Now im totally pissed, I want to go from start to end, not be forced to start a new career just because the game say so. Even if i have to, now i dont feel motivated at all to start a new career.

Lets press submit reply before i start writing things that is not so good :nope:

[SteamWake]

How dare you not swear that SH4 is perfect in every way?

Didnt you read the forum rules? Undocumented features are to be praised!

This silly concept of "having fun in my balao" is clearly not in keeping with the decorum here, so clean up your act or I shall accuse you of being a nagging troll!

Just kidding, I agree the forced retirement problem is the reason I dont play SH4 anymore.

Sigh...

Grunt really, if you dont play it anymore give it rest please.

[Grunt]

Request denied.

When SH4 is fixed I will, as you say, give it a rest.

[plumbob]

Obviously, the retierment thing is not a bug. And actually after I figured otu it wasn;t, is a pretty good feature if the designers had spent some time fleshing it out.

It is very frustrating to simply be given a message that you are to be flung out of the navy without any real reason. I think it would have been a very respectable use of time by the devs to include a few more retierments senarios, like being sent on warbond tours, being promoted out of the boat, accidental death (car, plane accident, etc.), being sent away to train new skippers.

So yeah, the forced retierment is not a bug, but it is a problem. You should be presented with the option of staying with the boat; ie. you get a dialog box that says

"Command has ordered you be sent home to take a position at Annapolis."

and then you get options like

"Accept the position - The war needs you elsewhere." or "Call in a favor and stay with the boat - The thought of a class full of bright eyed freshmen gives you the willies"

Then of course be taking one option of the other you get differen't results for your "future" after the war.

[Grunt]

Those sound good, but why not put an extra box in the game settings panel that says "Realistic Career Length".

Ya know, just like "Limited Fuel" and "Limited Batteries" or "Stabilize View".

The SH3 Dev's must be getting a good laugh from all this.

[Platapus]

I am confused.

I completed my first cruise in a Gar class submarine (I chose this from the career screen). I completed all missions and sunk over 65K tons.

Got back to pearl and got handed a bunch of fakeo medals and everyone marveled at how I could get my sub back in the condition (had a rough cruise)

I was given a new submarine and it is a Porpose class! 6 torp tubes instead of 10 and I lost all my upgrades :(

Is this anyway to reward an intrepid (and damn lucky) skipper?

Was the gar class I choose at the start of my career unrealistic and when the game "upgraded" me it went with a more historical sub?

Or is someone up the chain borkin me?

[mookiemookie]

I think you're getting borked. A P-class is definately a step down from the Gar, and I can't think of any historical reason why that would happen.

Look at it this way: at least they didn't bump you up the chain and retire you out altogether.

[Sir Big Jugs]

They gave it to someone better...

Be more aggressive!:smug:

[Chock]

Look at it this way, sometimes sh*t like that happens in the military, so I guess you could look at it that way. After all, Burt Lancaster gets screwed over in Run silent Run deep, too.

[Steppenwolf]

Is this anyway to reward an intrepid (and damn lucky) skipper?

Was the gar class I choose at the start of my career unrealistic and when the game "upgraded" me it went with a more historical sub?

Or is someone up the chain borkin me?
Oddly enough, it is a way to reward you.

One of the developers posted that sometimes when a sub is very badly damaged it cannot be repaired (or will take too long to repair) and has to be junked. Rather than scrap you, as well as the boat, if your performance was good (as yours obviously was) they will reward you by giving you another submarine. However, you get whatever sub is on hand (supplies are limited you know :)), which may be inferior to your original boat.

[SteamWake]

How did you get a Gar as your first commission anyhow ?


Yes I know you picked it but from a "roleplay" aspect (shrug).

[XanderF]

Moral of the story: don't get your boat so banged up. You can't drive over a few powerups and magically have your "health" restored to 100 pts.

As with reality, some damage can't be repaired, and the boat gets scrapped.

[shawnyp420]

That makes sense. I know they made a crapload of those diesel subs so the decision to scrap one must not have been a hard one to make.

[TheSatyr]

I can only think of one or two boats that were so damaged they had to be scrapped.

Look at it this way,they have to send your Gar back to the States for a full repair job and they don't want to keep you out of action for as long as the repair job would take so they transfered you to the first available boat.

Your exec gets the Gar and gets to party in San Francisco for a few months while you get to go back out and risk your neck again.

[TheBrauerHour]

They gave it to someone better...

Be more aggressive!:smug:

Classic... :rotfl:

[Platapus]

Moral of the story: don't get your boat so banged up. You can't drive over a few powerups and magically have your "health" restored to 100 pts.

As with reality, some damage can't be repaired, and the boat gets scrapped.

Well Sir,

Getting my boat banged up was not exactly my idea. You see, there were these Japanese gentlemen who seemed to take umbrage at my decreasing the buoyancy of some of their cargo ships.


They were awfully decent about it. They just wanted to chat about it. However, I was preoccupied with checking my trim at depth and running a silent running drill for the crew that I neglected to pay my respects to the convoy commander. Awfully sorry old chap!


Well those Japanese blokes wanted to send me a little something for the occasion. They were all carefully wrapped in metal drums, but something went wrong with them. Every time they got close to my submarine, they exploded. Must have been shotty workmanship what with the war being on.


Well, it started getting a little wet and noisy for my good so I waited until darkness and then surfaced for a breather. I guess the chaps got tired of waiting so I went home.


Believe me, if it were up to me, I would rather have forgone the damage to my submarine.


However, I will take your advice on my next patrol. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Tieg]

I started in the asiatic arena and on my first war patrol came home with empty torpedo rooms and 9 ships sunk for around 43000 tons.

My 2nd war patrol, again empty torpedo rooms with 9 ships sunk for 45000 tons. Was trying like hell to get 10. At the end of that war patrol I noticed manila was taken by the japs and I had to go to Surabaya to end patrol.

My 3rd war patrol with a new boat, again empty torpedo rooms with 10 ships sunk for 46000 tons. My boat is rapidly running out of brooms for the periscope when we pull in.

** My only gripe with these patrol was I was given the victory medal (medal of honor) when it should have been a lower award and I'm thinking about revisiting my medal mod and going back to the previous version I had. Wasn't perfect but it worked.**

NOW THE KICKER: I end up transferred to Pearl where I start out at and head back to the celebes sea. Right away I run into a convoy where I sink a destroyer on a snap shot as she appeared out of no where at night. I get the objectives to focus on convoy escorts so that re attacks on the convoy could be achieved. I end up sinking 2 more destroyers and have nothing but ships around me. Conserving torpedos for short accurate shots I end up sinking, damaging enough so they won't go no where and can be finished with deck gun later, and ultimately battle surfacing and sinking the entire convoy for 13 ships at 67000 tons. On my way back I get bomb twice by airplanes. Even though radar is installed I get no fore warning and recieve damage on both occasions so that I have to emergency surface, fight off the planes while making emergence repairs which I am successful.

I pull into port...get 2 medals and a note stating because of my less the noteworthy achievements I am retired early. :huh:

Was it the plane attacks? Or was I suppose to NOT sink the blipping convoy? Anyone else have similar sea stories?

[Onkel Neal]

That simulates the admiral getting drunk and making foolish decisions.


Just kidding, it sounds like a bug, the patch team is aware of it. What I do is start a new career in the year the old one ended, and then add the totals at war's end. ;)

[hyperion2206]

Isn't that bug caused when you get a Gato class before it should be officially available? I think if you get a Gato before it should be available the game ends your career at the very same date the Gato is introduced into service.

[Ducimus]

Isn't that bug caused when you get a Gato class before it should be officially available? I think if you get a Gato before it should be available the game ends your career at the very same date the Gato is introduced into service.

I think that happends, only if you forget to change the dates on the "patrol planner" for want of a better term. In every flotilla, each boat has a specified date its introduced, and a list of patrols that are sort of planned out based on date. If you forget to change the introduction date, and/or the date on the patrol assigments, then ya, you get an early career ending.

On a side note, the boat introduction date into a flotilla, also dictates when you can transfer to that flotilla with that boat type.

[tycho102]

emergence repairs which I am successful.

I pull into port...get 2 medals and a note stating because of my less the noteworthy achievements I am retired early. :huh:

Anyone else have similar sea stories?

Soon as I got the Balao out of Brisbane, I pulled some damage from a freighter during deck gunnery. Not bad. Couldn't dock anywhere but Freemantle. Pulled in and got retired.

So, I'm on a new career. Because I was hesitant to start over in '41 and run into the same bug again, I just started in '44.

I also noticed that during that last patrol in the Balao, the game was taking a long time to load. Both to the main menu, and into the game engine (4 minutes). It normally opens in 15 (intro menu) and 30 seconds (save load).

[Grunt]

You are a nagging troll, just pay your money and shut yer mouth.

Just kidding!

The career mode is perhaps the biggest bug that seemingly wont ever be fixed.

Im guessing the devs looked at one of the most rewarding aspects of SH3, the crew management and advancement feature, and decided it was simply just too good for decadent American scum to have, so they borked into oblivion.

[Grunt]

The career structure of SH3 was "open ended", thus allowing for a great degree of variation such as port, boat, crew, equipment, year, etc etc. Thus adding to overall playability as well as replay value.

Now, with SH4 we have a hideous forced career structure that severely limits playability and virtually obliterates replayability.

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

Be that as it may, we must therefore assume that should all things be equal, SH4 should behave much like SH3.

Ive been waiting for one of the self-appointed "experts" here to clarify this, but Ive waited long enough so Ill do it myself.

Please review the following information on German uboat commanders, with special note to amount of patrols.

Weight this carefully against the theory that "if it aint broke, dont fix it". Then lets remind the dev's this is an issue that needs to be fixed...immediately.

Karl-Friedrich Merten = 5 patrols

Georg Lassen = 4 patrols

Carl Emmermann = 5 patrols

Ernst Kals = 5 patrols

Helmut Witte = 4 patrols

Günter Hessler = 3 patrols

Ernst Bauer = 5 patrols

Reinhard Hardegen = 5 patrols

Werner Hartmann = 4 patrols

Richard Zapp = 5 patrols

Victor Oehrn = 4 patrols

Erwin Rostin = 2 patrols

Hans Ludwig Witt = 3 patrols

[Nightmare]

The career mode is perhaps the biggest bug that seemingly wont ever be fixed.
I’ve had quite a good time in the 3 careers I’ve played so far. Just this weekend was my first ever CTD, and from the sounds of it, it’s the corrupt save game bug that is held over for SH3. Nothing going back to an earlier save won’t fix.

For a game that has just now been out for a month, saying “It won’t ever get fixed” is quite a bold statement, not to mention a very negative one.
Im guessing the devs looked at one of the most rewarding aspects of SH3, the crew management and advancement feature, and decided it was simply just too good for decadent American scum to have, so they borked into oblivion.
As one of those “American scum,” I didn’t have a single problem with crew management in SH3. However I found it unrealistic for the captain of a U-boat to tell the crew when to go to bed. SH4’s watch system is more inline with how it was done historically. Also SH4’s handling of promoting and awarding medals to the crew is handled exactly the same as it was in SH3.

[SteamWake]

Looks like the average german skipper did 5 patrols.

[joea]

What exactly is your problem? I support making "realistic career length" an option ... love this feature in SH3 Commander. Think it ought to be tweaked and the end screens fixed though.

[Grunt]

Perhaps more but this is not a comprehensive list.

Regardless, SH3 allowed the player to run from the first day of the war to the last day of the war regardless of what German uboat commanders faced in reality.

But in SH4, players are forced to -/+ 5 patrols, or less depending on year and boat.

I strongly suggest the devs add a little box in the realism section that says "Realistic Career Length".

[Nightmare]

What exactly is your problem? I support making "realistic career length" an option ... love this feature in SH3 Commander. Think it ought to be tweaked and the end screens fixed though.

I agree, and option box would be a great way to handle this. In the mean time, what I've done is just start a new career in the year of when I was retired and pretend I'm transferred to new construction or a new boat.

A little off topic: Wasn't there already a thread discussing this topic already? I remember reading one late last week.

[mookiemookie]

German kaleuns were forced to do more patrols since the Kriegsmarine was losing more than what could be replaced. As for your list, at least 1 of them, Hardegen, was retired due to health problems.

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

If you'd crack a book and learn a little history (or as you call it "some such bunk"), you'd know that Lockwood was big on giving his skippers leave after 4 or 5 patrols so as to keep them fresh. Many of them were bumped up the chain after just a few patrols. Imagine that, a sub simulation that actually simulates what happened.

Do I agree that "realistic career length" should be an option? Sure.

[AVGWarhawk]

Looks like the average german skipper did 5 patrols.

Looks the same to me. So what is the issue? That SH3 lets you go up to 15 unrealistic patrols or that part of the game does not matter to your style of game play? I'm not sure what you are attempting to have fixed here.

A discussion last week on this basically amounted to having the option to continue on or end it there. Players choice.

[Grunt]

Looks like the average german skipper did 5 patrols.

Looks the same to me. So what is the issue? That SH3 lets you go up to 15 unrealistic patrols or that part of the game does not matter to your style of game play? I'm not sure what you are attempting to have fixed here.

A discussion last week on this basically amounted to having the option to continue on or end it there. Players choice.

How many poeple would buy, and play, SH4 if you were forced to do manual targeting? Or worse yet, a flawed and innacurate manual targeting system?

[XanderF]

Heck, play less of the game at 8096x time compression, and perform realistic approach and target assesment work, and ONE patrol will take long enough!

I agree it would be nice as an option (especially as the 'arcade' mode is still very much there, and those type of gamers shouldn't be forced into retiring when they are busy Rambo-ing through the war...if that's how they want to play, and they will pay $50 for the game to do it, BY ALL MEANS LET THEM!), but it's hardly fair to criticize the idea as a game fault.

[NEON DEON]

Grunt,

The USN witch doctors determined that 4 patrols and out.

However that was not always the case.

George Fluckey mentioned that several times in his book "Thunder Below"

Fluckey did 5 patrols the fifth ending in August 1945 the end of the war in the Pacific.

BTW.

I agree with you about being able to continue with your career after 5 missions.

SH IV should give you the option of staying to fight or a desk job.

Choice is always good. It just appeals to a much wider audience.

[Grunt]

German kaleuns were forced to do more patrols since the Kriegsmarine was losing more than what could be replaced. As for your list, at least 1 of them, Hardegen, was retired due to health problems.

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

If you'd crack a book and learn a little history (or as you call it "some such bunk"), you'd know that Lockwood was big on giving his skippers leave after 4 or 5 patrols so as to keep them fresh. Many of them were bumped up the chain after just a few patrols. Imagine that, a sub simulation that actually simulates what happened.

Do I agree that "realistic career length" should be an option? Sure.


Who to blame for the SH4 career structure bug?

1) Lockwood: for bumping skippers up the line

2) Grunt: for pointing out the problem and backing it with facts

3 The dev's: for borking the un-borked SH3 career structure beyond recognition

[mookiemookie]

Who to blame for the SH4 career structure bug?

1) Lockwood: for bumping skippers up the line

2) Grunt: for pointing out the problem and backing it with facts

3 The dev's: for borking the un-borked SH3 career structure beyond recognition

4. A submarine simulation for SIMULATING history. Imagine that, eh? :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

German kaleuns were forced to do more patrols since the Kriegsmarine was losing more than what could be replaced. As for your list, at least 1 of them, Hardegen, was retired due to health problems.

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

If you'd crack a book and learn a little history (or as you call it "some such bunk"), you'd know that Lockwood was big on giving his skippers leave after 4 or 5 patrols so as to keep them fresh. Many of them were bumped up the chain after just a few patrols. Imagine that, a sub simulation that actually simulates what happened.

Do I agree that "realistic career length" should be an option? Sure.

Who to blame for the SH4 career structure bug?

1) Lockwood: for bumping skippers up the line

2) Grunt: for pointing out the problem and backing it with facts

3 The dev's: for borking the un-borked SH3 career structure beyond recognition
How is this a bug? Please clarify. It seems to me it works as intended. Now if you are given the option to continue on, this would be a feature. Now please clarify how this is construed as a bug.

Seems to me if it is something you do not like is it shelved as a bug. Very odd.....

[NEON DEON]

Who to blame for the SH4 career structure bug?

1) Lockwood: for bumping skippers up the line

2) Grunt: for pointing out the problem and backing it with facts

3 The dev's: for borking the un-borked SH3 career structure beyond recognition

4. A submarine simulation for SIMULATING history. Imagine that, eh? :rotfl:

I am going to get stuffed on this one but what the heck.

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

Narwhal 15 war patrols

Nautilus 14 war patrols

Drum 13 war patrols

Just a few of the boats that went almost all the way.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who to blame for the SH4 career structure bug?

1) Lockwood: for bumping skippers up the line

2) Grunt: for pointing out the problem and backing it with facts

3 The dev's: for borking the un-borked SH3 career structure beyond recognition
4. A submarine simulation for SIMULATING history. Imagine that, eh? :rotfl:
I am going to get stuffed on this one but what the heck.

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

Narwhal 15 war patrols

Nautilus 14 war patrols

Drum 13 war patrols

Just a few of the boats that went almost all the way.

Boats yes but with the same Skipper? I do not believe so. Could be wrong but I believe I'm not.

[mookiemookie]

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

I don't see any difference between the two.

[Nightmare]

I am going to get stuffed on this one but what the heck.

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

Narwhal 15 war patrols

Nautilus 14 war patrols

Drum 13 war patrols

Just a few of the boats that went almost all the way.
SH4 is simulating a submarine captain's career not the boat. Using Fleetsubmarine.com (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com) as reference we see that:

Narwhal (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-167.html) had 4 different skippers during the war

Nautilus (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-168.html) also had 4 different skippers

Drum (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-228.html) had 5

[NEON DEON]

Ok I will put it another way:

The boats did not retire after 5 patrols.

[NEON DEON]

I am going to get stuffed on this one but what the heck.

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

Narwhal 15 war patrols

Nautilus 14 war patrols

Drum 13 war patrols

Just a few of the boats that went almost all the way.
SH4 is simulating a captains career not the boat. Using Fleetsubmarine.com (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com) as reference we see that:

Narwhal (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-167.html) had 4 different skippers during the war

Nautilus (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-168.html) also had 4 different skippers

Drum (http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-228.html) had 4 as well

The name of the forums you are typing in is SUBSIM.COM

not

SUBSKIPPER.COM :p

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok I will put it another way:

The boats did not retire after 5 patrols.

Exactly.

[elanaiba]

The career structure of SH3 was "open ended", thus allowing for a great degree of variation such as port, boat, crew, equipment, year, etc etc. Thus adding to overall playability as well as replay value.

Now, with SH4 we have a hideous forced career structure that severely limits playability and virtually obliterates replayability.

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

Be that as it may, we must therefore assume that should all things be equal, SH4 should behave much like SH3.

Ive been waiting for one of the self-appointed "experts" here to clarify this, but Ive waited long enough so Ill do it myself.

Please review the following information on German uboat commanders, with special note to amount of patrols.

Weight this carefully against the theory that "if it aint broke, dont fix it". Then lets remind the dev's this is an issue that needs to be fixed...immediately.

Karl-Friedrich Merten = 5 patrols

Georg Lassen = 4 patrols

Carl Emmermann = 5 patrols

Ernst Kals = 5 patrols

Helmut Witte = 4 patrols

Günter Hessler = 3 patrols

Ernst Bauer = 5 patrols

Reinhard Hardegen = 5 patrols

Werner Hartmann = 4 patrols

Richard Zapp = 5 patrols

Victor Oehrn = 4 patrols

Erwin Rostin = 2 patrols

Hans Ludwig Witt = 3 patrols

I understand you want not to be retired after 5 patrols. The game was never meant to be that strict. And some people are still playing after more than 5 patrols, on this forum.

But the way you have worded the message, it sounds more like youre complaining that SH3 is letting you continue after 5 patrols :O

[DragonRR1]

We complain where the game is historical, we complain where the game is not historical..

I'm sure most here can see arguments for terminating the career in a historical fashion or letting the player continue on in a more arcade fashion. I am quite certain the devs are aware that a number of users would like to see an option to continue the career.

Personally I would like the option to be there but I don't see this issue as a number 1 priority. There are many other problems which I personally consider to be of more importance - AI, Torpedo type issues, the chronometer problem and so on.

[VonBlade]

4. A submarine simulation for SIMULATING history. Imagine that, eh? :rotfl:

I don't want to get lynched, but it's a game. WWII was 6 years long. US involvement lasted 4 years. So I should have a good 1000 days of sea time to spend mucking about in the water, should I so wish.

My 1.00025 Pence.

[Nightmare]

The name of the forums you are typing in is SUBSIM.COM

not

SUBSKIPPER.COM :p


lol, subskipper.com :rotfl:

I think people are missing the point I'm trying to make. Historically speaking captains were moved up the ranks or relieved of command for failure to sink ships. Since SH4 is simulating you as captain, you being retired after X amount of patrols is historically correct.

However, I do agree the option should be made available for you to continue if you chose to. As you put it earlier Neon Deon, choice is always good. :up:

[Quillan]

It sounds to me like we're all in agreement there should be a realism checkbox for "Realistic career length", right? So why are we arguing?

[Ducimus]

*shrug* weird. I after 6 patrols in a gato, i was given the option to continue the career or retire. Continuing cost me renown, which wasnt any problem since i had plenty of that banked up.

[NEON DEON]

*shrug* weird. I after 6 patrols in a gato, i was given the option to continue the career or retire. Continuing cost me renown, which wasnt any problem since i had plenty of that banked up.

Ahh!

So you can go longer if you want.

How much renown did they hit you for?

[Ducimus]

Honestly i dont remember. 600-700? It really wasnt that much. I didnt play for very much longer after that so i dont know if it would ask me again or not. I went in and out of base 3 times or so to see what it would do, and i dont recall anything specific. I run alot of test careers so my memory might be fuzzy. In the end i deleted that career game because i wanted to start over after a mod revision so i cant give you a more positive answer. But ya, it gave me the option to continue.

edit: It just occured to me that boat type might have alot to do with if you get the option continue or not. Not all boats are covered by the flotilla files to last the duration of the war. Theres an exit date for some boats.

[Grunt]

[/quote]How is this a bug? Please clarify. It seems to me it works as intended. Now if you are given the option to continue on, this would be a feature. Now please clarify how this is construed as a bug.

Seems to me if it is something you do not like is it shelved as a bug. Very odd.....[/quote]

Its like watching Bill Clinton take the stand...

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

[mookiemookie]

4. A submarine simulation for SIMULATING history. Imagine that, eh? :rotfl:
I don't want to get lynched, but it's a game. WWII was 6 years long. US involvement lasted 4 years. So I should have a good 1000 days of sea time to spend mucking about in the water, should I so wish.

My 1.00025 Pence.

Exactly why those captians who want that option should have it. Part of that whole realism settings menu, I would imagine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Alright - I am gonna jump in here. There is no "FORCED" retirement in SH4 - as intended at least. The game does ask you if you want to retire or not - if not you take a renown hit but keep going. However - there IS a bug in this - if you start the war in a boat that wont make it to the end - even if you get a new one - when your first boat class is retired - so are you. THAT is a bug that does need to be fixed.

In essence - the devs attempted to give us the option - and rather well implemented in an immersive way vs a "checkbox" - but it simply doesnt work right... yet. Perhaps in 1.3?

In the meantime - we can stop arguing because we all agree the option should be there - and thankfully it is. :arrgh!:

Good Hunting
Captain Haplo

[SteamWake]

In the meantime - we can stop arguing because we all agree the option should be there - and thankfully it is. :arrgh!:

Good Hunting
Captain Haplo

Very interesting.

I guess I havent run accross this yet because quite honestly it takes me two or three days to complete one patrol let alone 5.

Insightfull post though thanks :up:

[CaptainHaplo]

No problem, Steamwake. Although I cant take credit - this has been confirmed well before I ever saw it. The good thing is - the devs are aware of it - as noted by Onkel Neal - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=513223&postcount=2 - so I would expect this would get attention in 1.3 - which I am becoming more and more confident will be a reality.

Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo

[Fearless]

Heck, play less of the game at 8096x time compression, and perform realistic approach and target assesment work, and ONE patrol will take long enough!

My sentiment exactly. Play it in real time and you'd be happy just to go out for 4 to 5 patrols. :lol:

[Grothesj2]

It sounds to me like we're all in agreement there should be a realism checkbox for "Realistic career length", right? So why are we arguing?

Why, for post count of course! And yes, having it as a realism option is good.

[Grunt]

No problem, Steamwake. Although I cant take credit - this has been confirmed well before I ever saw it. The good thing is - the devs are aware of it - as noted by Onkel Neal - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=513223&postcount=2 - so I would expect this would get attention in 1.3 - which I am becoming more and more confident will be a reality.

Good Hunting!
Captain Haplo

So you are saying the possibility of a "realistic career length" option exists? I checked that link, but who is the person making the comment? Is someone trying to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn?

Should the next patch allow an open ended career path, Id start playing SH4 again.

[AVGWarhawk]

How is this a bug? Please clarify. It seems to me it works as intended. Now if you are given the option to continue on, this would be a feature. Now please clarify how this is construed as a bug.

Seems to me if it is something you do not like is it shelved as a bug. Very odd.....
Its like watching Bill Clinton take the stand...

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Sadly, we never got a straight answer from Bill either. How do you contend that having your career terminated at 5 patrols is a bug?

[Galanti]

I've read through the millions of 'forced termination' threads and posts and seems
that there is a great deal of confusion on this issue/non-issue/many issues.

My understanding is :

#1a The intended funtionality is that the game retires you at a certain point in keeping with realism. This is fine, though the consensus is it should be an option. This is not a bug.

#1b In case of 1a, you should be offered the chance to opt to stay in the war, at the cost of some renown. Some players have stated this is around 700 renown. This again is not a bug.

#2 There appears to be a bug reported by some poeple whereby you are retired if the boat class you started the war with ( irregardless of which class of boat you have now) is retired from service. This can be confused with point #1a, as it will appear to the player to be arbitrary and not have anything to do with performance. This is a bug.

In short, it seems to me many people who are experiencing point #2 (which is a bug) are confusing it with point #1 (which is not). I think what is fuelling the confusion is that we have no idea at which threshhold the game decides you are to be retired.

Assuming my observations are correct, it would be great to get from the devs some idea of which factors are considered in this whole retirement business.

[djdemo]

Mook you did say sub sim not skipper sim.

I don't see any difference between the two.


Well, the skipper sim may include some aspects of being a Captain of a boat - managing the crew between patrols etc.

The pure sub sim would just be operating the sub and nothing else.

A slight difference I know, but a subtle one that I think makes the difference...


Are we simulating simply operating a submarine in WW2, or are we simulating being a WW2 skipper in the US Navy, with the constraints that went with it.

I personally prefer the latter option, but just as with the targeting - we should have the option to play with less realism if we want.


But if you do patrols on full realism, it's a relief to make it through four patrols and get a (safe) desk job, knowing you beat the system.


I would agree, however, that you should be able to carry on if you want to - but I do appluad all design decisions that make the game more realistic, and this is one of them.

Now, if they only fix the 'wound' medal award... :)

[Sailor Steve]

[The pure sub sim would just be operating the sub and nothing else.
Strictly speaking a pure sub sim would entail becoming the sub; not one I'd care to play, I think.:lurk:

[Iron Budokan]

I don't know. A "self-aware" submarine might be pretty cool.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't know. A "self-aware" submarine might be pretty cool.

The Terminator!:o

[Grunt]

How is this a bug? Please clarify. It seems to me it works as intended. Now if you are given the option to continue on, this would be a feature. Now please clarify how this is construed as a bug.

Seems to me if it is something you do not like is it shelved as a bug. Very odd.....
Its like watching Bill Clinton take the stand...

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Sadly, we never got a straight answer from Bill either. How do you contend that having your career terminated at 5 patrols is a bug?


All the apologistic pseudo-rationalization & mental gymnastics cant force me to reinvent the wheel here. But I invite you to continue the hand wringing, as I find it mildly amusing.

Anyhow, if sending 100,000 tons to the bottom on (1942) patrol #2, then being forcibly retired along with your Tambor (no option to extend due to 'poor performance') isnt a bug, what is?

A problem that happens once is a quirk. A problem that happens twice is a bug. A problem that can be replicated on a consistent basis is a ROARING BLOODTHIRSTY FLESHEATING BUG! Even if it was designed into the game :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

How is this a bug? Please clarify. It seems to me it works as intended. Now if you are given the option to continue on, this would be a feature. Now please clarify how this is construed as a bug.

Seems to me if it is something you do not like is it shelved as a bug. Very odd.....
Its like watching Bill Clinton take the stand...

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Sadly, we never got a straight answer from Bill either. How do you contend that having your career terminated at 5 patrols is a bug?

All the apologistic pseudo-rationalization & mental gymnastics cant force me to reinvent the wheel here. But I invite you to continue the hand wringing, as I find it mildly amusing.

Anyhow, if sending 100,000 tons to the bottom on (1942) patrol #2, then being forcibly retired along with your Tambor (no option to extend due to 'poor performance') isnt a bug, what is?

A problem that happens once is a quirk. A problem that happens twice is a bug. A problem that can be replicated on a consistent basis is a ROARING BLOODTHIRSTY FLESHEATING BUG! Even if it was designed into the game :rotfl:
You still have not answered the question..... How is ending your career that is modelled into the game as a part of realism considered a 'bug' as you have classified it. No hand wringing here mate, just looking for a straight answer and not any beating around the bush like you have because you seem not to have a legitimate answer to this seemly simple question. No one is asking for a wheel to be reinvented, just a simple answer from you. From what I gather, things in the game you do like somehow turn into a 'bug'. This career ending model seems to be one of them. So please, astound me with a well educated extrapolation on why this action of career termination is a 'bug'.

I've read through the millions of 'forced termination' threads and posts and seems
that there is a great deal of confusion on this issue/non-issue/many issues.

My understanding is :

#1a The intended funtionality is that the game retires you at a certain point in keeping with realism. This is fine, though the consensus is it should be an option. This is not a bug.

#1b In case of 1a, you should be offered the chance to opt to stay in the war, at the cost of some renown. Some players have stated this is around 700 renown. This again is not a bug.

#2 There appears to be a bug reported by some poeple whereby you are retired if the boat class you started the war with ( irregardless of which class of boat you have now) is retired from service. This can be confused with point #1a, as it will appear to the player to be arbitrary and not have anything to do with performance. This is a bug.

In short, it seems to me many people who are experiencing point #2 (which is a bug) are confusing it with point #1 (which is not). I think what is fuelling the confusion is that we have no idea at which threshhold the game decides you are to be retired.

Assuming my observations are correct, it would be great to get from the devs some idea of which factors are considered in this whole retirement business.


This poster seems to know how to get it across concerning how it is considered a bug.

[Galanti]

Did either of you (AVGWarhawk, Grunt) read my post on the previous page? It looks like you're both arguing about apples and oranges. You're both correct.

[AVGWarhawk]

Did either of you (AVGWarhawk, Grunt) read my post on the previous page? It looks like you're both arguing about apples and oranges. You're both correct.
Just put it in my unfinished post but you are correct and know how to provide a great answer.

[Juju]

Bah. Returning to Fremantle after a succesfull tenth patrol in june 1943. When I arrive there it seems my base has been changed, but someone forgot to notify me. 'K s**t happens, and I've heard many a skipper complain about it, so I simply go to Brisbane to see if I could dock there.
Goody, I can! Only to be told that my current class of submarine (uh-huh, a mint condition Balao class, only used for 4 weeks, not a scratch on it) will be retired from the front line, with me -the entire navy's most succesful sub skipper- along with it.

I love this game, but I've been tiptoeing around its many, many bugs and quirks for too many hours since its release. But enough is enough. I'm thoroughly disappointed, and this time it's me who's doing the mothballing.

[TripleDaddy]

I've read through the millions of 'forced termination' threads and posts and seems
that there is a great deal of confusion on this issue/non-issue/many issues.

My understanding is :

#1a The intended funtionality is that the game retires you at a certain point in keeping with realism. This is fine, though the consensus is it should be an option. This is not a bug.

#1b In case of 1a, you should be offered the chance to opt to stay in the war, at the cost of some renown. Some players have stated this is around 700 renown. This again is not a bug.

#2 There appears to be a bug reported by some poeple whereby you are retired if the boat class you started the war with ( irregardless of which class of boat you have now) is retired from service. This can be confused with point #1a, as it will appear to the player to be arbitrary and not have anything to do with performance. This is a bug.

In short, it seems to me many people who are experiencing point #2 (which is a bug) are confusing it with point #1 (which is not). I think what is fuelling the confusion is that we have no idea at which threshhold the game decides you are to be retired.

Assuming my observations are correct, it would be great to get from the devs some idea of which factors are considered in this whole retirement business.

So which file/files control when a boat class is retired? Wouldn't setting the retirement date for all classes to 1/1/46 effectively kill the bug?

[Sailor Steve]

There are at least two "Forced Retirement" and "Forced Termination" threads you could have posted on. You didn't have to start a new one.

[Nightmare]

There are a lot more than 2 thread on the forced retirement. A quick use of the forum search showed a half dozen on the first page alone.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113206&highlight=Retirement

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109507&highlight=Retirement

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110807&highlight=Retirement

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109833&highlight=Retirement

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109017&highlight=Retirement

However, to save the OP some time. One the first thread I posted above, Galanti summed up the issue nicely on the second page:
I've read through the millions of 'forced termination' threads and posts and seems
that there is a great deal of confusion on this issue/non-issue/many issues.

My understanding is :

#1a The intended funtionality is that the game retires you at a certain point in keeping with realism. This is fine, though the consensus is it should be an option. This is not a bug.

#1b In case of 1a, you should be offered the chance to opt to stay in the war, at the cost of some renown. Some players have stated this is around 700 renown. This again is not a bug.

#2 There appears to be a bug reported by some poeple whereby you are retired if the boat class you started the war with ( irregardless of which class of boat you have now) is retired from service. This can be confused with point #1a, as it will appear to the player to be arbitrary and not have anything to do with performance. This is a bug.

In short, it seems to me many people who are experiencing point #2 (which is a bug) are confusing it with point #1 (which is not). I think what is fuelling the confusion is that we have no idea at which threshhold the game decides you are to be retired.

Assuming my observations are correct, it would be great to get from the devs some idea of which factors are considered in this whole retirement business.

[Juju]

There are at least two "Forced Retirement" and "Forced Termination" threads you could have posted on. You didn't have to start a new one.
Feel free to delete this thread, then.

[Sailor Steve]

There are a lot more than 2 thread on the forced retirement.
I did say "at least".:sunny:

[Ducimus]

Im happy to say its easily fixed.

[AVGWarhawk]

Im happy to say its easily fixed.


:up:

[Grunt]

Poor Juju, he forgot the standard modus here at subsim.

For a clarification, please look up the term "Apologist", or a brief description below.

Colloquial usage

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive), or "whitewashing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29)" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception)) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

Put simply Juju, had you made a post about how utterly perfect and fantastic SH4 is, the moderators would leave you alone...or perhaps even let you into their little circle.

BUT! In keeping with the above methods, you will now be browbeaten into submission using standard Orwellian tactics.

We hope you enjoyed this public service message, and remember our motto:

PAY YOUR DAMNED MONEY, KEEP YOU FREAKIN TRAP SHUT!

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Grunt]

No, I doubt that will fix anything because the organic calculation system the career structure uses is borked into oblivion.

Its as if black is white, up is down, and left is right. So sinking lots of enemy ships is a sin punishable by forced retirement for "poor performance".

As I have tried to explain at length, and the apologists have ignored, even if the career track were based on "realism" its implementation is completely defective, ergo BIG FAT BUG!

[Sailor Steve]

Put simply Juju, had you made a post about how utterly perfect and fantastic SH4 is, the moderators would leave you alone...or perhaps even let you into their little circle.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am not now, nor have I ever been a moderator. Further, if asked I will not run, and if elected I will not serve.

I'm just a guy who reads all the threads I can every day, and when I see one that matches all the others I like to give somebody grief over it, partly because I hate reading the same thing over on a new thread, partly because I hate it when I think somebody didn't look around to see what was what, and partly because I'm envious, because I can't play the game myself!

I also hate it when people make the high-handed accusation that anyone who complains will automatically get dumped on, while anyone who praises will automatically be allowed to. I think that shows more than a little prejudice of a different kind.

Thank you, I was having a nice day until you had to expose my standard Orwellian tactics and horrible browbeating!:dead:

[Subsim Monitor]

Poor Juju, he forgot the standard modus here at subsim.

For a clarification, please look up the term "Apologist", or a brief description below.

Colloquial usage

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive), or "whitewashing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29)" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception)) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

Put simply Juju, had you made a post about how utterly perfect and fantastic SH4 is, the moderators would leave you alone...or perhaps even let you into their little circle.

BUT! In keeping with the above methods, you will now be browbeaten into submission using standard Orwellian tactics.

We hope you enjoyed this public service message, and remember our motto:

PAY YOUR DAMNED MONEY, KEEP YOU FREAKIN TRAP SHUT!

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Well, we've asked you at least a dozen times to stop trolling, you are now retired from the service. ;) Forced retirement!

http://torplexed.com/neal-sp1.jpg

[Nightmare]

Im happy to say its easily fixed.
I can't keep up with all the new mods that are coming out on a daily basis. Has this fix been intergrated into your mod yet? If not, which mod or what files do we need to edit? Just want to be prepared when I start my S class career this weekend.

[TripleDaddy]

So you've said in approximately 2,145 other threads...

[perisher]

I would like to add one point to this forced retirement thing. Almost all American submarine skippers were professional sailors, rather than wartime reservists. As such, command of a fleet sub was a stepping stone in a career that they all hoped would get them to flag rank. After doing their time in subs they would have wanted to move on.

However this is a game so an option to follow a realistic career pattern, or not, should be offered.

Yes there is a problem with the text of some of the retirement screens, but is it really a big deal?

Now, in the interests of realism, I am off to my simulated (but with real beer) bar of the Royal Hawaiian as I have just returned from patrol.

[SteamWake]

Poor Juju, he forgot the standard modus here at subsim.

For a clarification, please look up the term "Apologist", or a brief description below.

Colloquial usage

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive), or "whitewashing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29)" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception)) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

Put simply Juju, had you made a post about how utterly perfect and fantastic SH4 is, the moderators would leave you alone...or perhaps even let you into their little circle.

BUT! In keeping with the above methods, you will now be browbeaten into submission using standard Orwellian tactics.

We hope you enjoyed this public service message, and remember our motto:

PAY YOUR DAMNED MONEY, KEEP YOU FREAKIN TRAP SHUT!

Thank you, and have a nice day.

They were simply pointing out to the OP there were many threads already discussing this topic.

There was no attempt to squelch his opinon.

Get the chip off your shoulder already its getting old.

[Camaero]

Nobody wants to read a million new threads bitching about the same old thing. Nobody cares. All it does is get in the way of interesting reads and people who are actually trying to help. What you are talking about isn't even a bug! It is a realistic feature for crying out loud, in what is supposed to be a sub sim. I know there are many people over in the mod section trying to make it so people have an option, which is a good thing, but enough of the crying.

I don't need to see a thread about how you have decided not to play the game anymore and I would not mind at all if the mods kept control over this boring same old crap.

Of course if you have something useful to add however, post away.:up:

[KiwiVenge]

Nobody wants to read a million new threads bitching about the same old thing. Nobody cares. All it does is get in the way of interesting reads and people who are actually trying to help. What you are talking about isn't even a bug! It is a realistic feature for crying out loud, in what is supposed to be a sub sim. I know there are many people over in the mod section trying to make it so people have an option, which is a good thing, but enough of the crying.

I don't need to see a thread about how you have decided not to play the game anymore and I would not mind at all if the mods kept control over this boring same old crap.

Of course if you have something useful to add however, post away.:up: If you do not want to read another thread about people not liking the early retirement 'feature' then why oh why would you read a thread called Retirement Rant? I can see if someone is vague with the title and somehow tricked you into opening the thread, but this guy was upfront about what you were about to see. A Rant about Retirement.

[Camaero]

Nobody wants to read a million new threads bitching about the same old thing. Nobody cares. All it does is get in the way of interesting reads and people who are actually trying to help. What you are talking about isn't even a bug! It is a realistic feature for crying out loud, in what is supposed to be a sub sim. I know there are many people over in the mod section trying to make it so people have an option, which is a good thing, but enough of the crying.

I don't need to see a thread about how you have decided not to play the game anymore and I would not mind at all if the mods kept control over this boring same old crap.

Of course if you have something useful to add however, post away.:up: If you do not want to read another thread about people not liking the early retirement 'feature' then why oh why would you read a thread called Retirement Rant? I can see if someone is vague with the title and somehow tricked you into opening the thread, but this guy was upfront about what you were about to see. A Rant about Retirement.

Well if there were only one or two threads about ranting then I wouldn't care. However, when there are one or two of them a day popping up then it starts to clog up useful posts. How about just sticking to one?

[KiwiVenge]

It is a valid suggestion, but likely to be ignored. People will still come here and have their say (rightly so) and pick and choose whether they want to find a thread that is related or just make a new one. They way you presented your suggestion was a bit over the top though. Telling anyone they are posting crap simply because they did not post to suit you own personal views on how it should be done could be considered a bit much.

[heartc]

It is a valid suggestion, but likely to be ignored. People will still come here and have their say (rightly so) and pick and choose whether they want to find a thread that is related or just make a new one.

I'm not part of the subsim.com team, so it's none of my business where they would decide to draw the line, but you do realize that this is a private website? As it is, they are pretty lax, but out of courtesy, not of some "rights" you percieve any ranters to have here.

[KiwiVenge]

It is a valid suggestion, but likely to be ignored. People will still come here and have their say (rightly so) and pick and choose whether they want to find a thread that is related or just make a new one.
I'm not part of the subsim.com team, so it's none of my business where they would decide to draw the line, but you do realize that this is a private website? As it is, they are pretty lax, but out of courtesy, not of some &quot;rights&quot; you percieve any ranters to have here. I did not limit what I said to just 'ranters' as you call them, I meant anyone posting about any topic. Not everyone is going to check for related threads before posting their thoughts. I did not mean my 'rightly so' phrasing to be read as some sort of official legal 'right' as you have implied either. I meant more along the lines of 'thats how forums usually work'.

[Herr Karl]

Personally, I'm happy with the realism aspect. It would be nice to have an option also.
It appears in some cases there is an option, and in some cases there isn't.

It would be kewl if Jason made us another Commander for SH4.

Jason, where are you?

[Beery]

Now, the standard fare among the subsim forum apologists is "The average US sub commander did 5 patrols" or some such bunk.

How can it be 'bunk' if it's factual?

Look, if you want to play an arcade game where you get to play as many sub missions you want, that game probably exists somewhere. But this is not that game. This is a WW2 sub simulation and that means limited patrols.

[Beery]

As I have tried to explain at length, and the apologists have ignored, even if the career track were based on "realism" its implementation is completely defective, ergo BIG FAT BUG!

Then complain about the BUG, not the feature. As long as you keep complaining about the feature folks like me will be forced to come to its defence.

[Herr Kapitan]

Whatever peoples feelings about posters who express dissapointment about the performance of SH4 there is no need to be rude and discorteous. :oops::oops:

I have no idea whether the OP is a new of existing member but telling him that he is in the wrong before even offering help is most unfortunate to say the least. :o:o

How would you feel if you had a real problem and someone said get lost bozo, no one will help you unless you learn to use the search facility. :down::down:

By the way some individuals need to remove from their heads the idea that anyone who expresses their dissatisfaction with the game is automatically a ranter. In my opinion people who label others ranters are no less biased in their views than others who label supporters of this game fanboys.:lol::lol::lol:

[USS_shipmaster]

I think I made a world record starting career in dec 41 (PH) and ending at march 43, and i had 7(or 8) patrols, with relatevly good statistics. but realism options were 68. I refused to resign once (after 5th patrol) then I was forced to do it :-(
I agree that making career length optional is a good staff.
I m using manual targeting now, but I think that chronometer feature is mandatory.
A lot of players will play with this feature and probably it will make sales of SH4 grow again during the time. The biggest problem now is not a career , but features were annonced in manual and still donot work or debugged.there are only about 5 left.
best regards
VK

[Karl-Heinz Jaeger]

Poor Juju, he forgot the standard modus here at subsim.

For a clarification, please look up the term "Apologist", or a brief description below.

Colloquial usage

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive), or "whitewashing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_%28censorship%29)" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception)) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

Put simply Juju, had you made a post about how utterly perfect and fantastic SH4 is, the moderators would leave you alone...or perhaps even let you into their little circle.

BUT! In keeping with the above methods, you will now be browbeaten into submission using standard Orwellian tactics.

We hope you enjoyed this public service message, and remember our motto:

PAY YOUR DAMNED MONEY, KEEP YOU FREAKIN TRAP SHUT!

Thank you, and have a nice day.
They were simply pointing out to the OP there were many threads already discussing this topic.

There was no attempt to squelch his opinon.

Get the chip off your shoulder already its getting old.

Agreed. No-one likes a smartalec, especially a troll. Back under your bridge, my friend.


Nobody wants to read a million new threads bitching about the same old thing. Nobody cares. All it does is get in the way of interesting reads and people who are actually trying to help. What you are talking about isn't even a bug! It is a realistic feature for crying out loud, in what is supposed to be a sub sim. I know there are many people over in the mod section trying to make it so people have an option, which is a good thing, but enough of the crying.

I don't need to see a thread about how you have decided not to play the game anymore and I would not mind at all if the mods kept control over this boring same old crap.

Of course if you have something useful to add however, post away.:up:
Firstly, I care and I can speak for myself without needing a spokesperson or parent figure to do so for me. Might be a little clearer if you had put, YOU don't want to read a million threads and YOU don't care since all we are reading are YOUR opinions. I can, and will post my own.

Secondly, although YOU don't, I find this thread interesting because of the typical knee jerk reaction, from BOTH sides, yet again. Again, I would like to clarify that I don't have need of a babysitter to determine for me what is interesting and what is not.

Thirdly, 'crying' as you put it is what got us a 1.2 patch, and just might get us a 1.3. I realise you don't want people to stop finding and pointing out bugs and flaws but it isn't for you to determine what people are allowed to post and what they aren't. Perhaps if you can see past your own prejudices for a moment, you might realise that, as long as the rules are followed, people can post pretty much what they like and have the right to do so without people like you biting their nose off and belittling them for it. As has been said, this post's title hardly required an enigma machine to decrypt and no-one forced you to come in and read it. That's called free will, and I'm fairly certain you understand what that means.

Lastly, like a lot of things, what can be considered useful is relative, meaning different things are useful for different people. Your last point is little more than you saying 'Don't post anything if I might not like it, but if I will like it then you have my permission'. Well guess what? Being part of a community entails being exposed to thoughts, opinions and other things that you may not like or that differ from yours.

Ooops, forgot my little thumbs up smiley. It emphasises how right I am. :up: Much better.

[Tony1]

After getting a new Balao Sub at Pearl, I was transferred to Brisbane. When I returned to Brisbane after sinking 18 ships I was only able to refit. I traveled to Freemantle I was able to dock. Upon docking I received metals and was told that my sub class (Balao) was being retired and me along with it due to poor performance. End of career. However, I started to look into what could of show a lack of performance. Upon looking into the "CareerTrack" file, there were no entres for my last patrol out of Brisbane. For whatever reason SH4 failed to record my sinks throughout my laswt patrol and upon docking it must have concidered me an poor performer based on the "CareerTrack" file.

[mookiemookie]

Personally, I'm happy with the realism aspect. It would be nice to have an option also.
It appears in some cases there is an option, and in some cases there isn't.

It would be kewl if Jason made us another Commander for SH4.

Jason, where are you?
Unfortunately JScones has said he's not making a SH4 Commander due to the headaches from the last go round with SH3 (people saying things like "OMG SH3 commander broke my computer and cancelled my credit cards!" and whatnot). He also said that some of the code that SH3 Commander uses is proprietary and wouldn't be released to someone else to make a SH4 Commander.

Not saying that nobody will ever take a stab at it, but just don't expect it from JScones.

[SteamWake]

Yes JS has had it with the "gratitude" of the community. Actually they said "It demagnitized there refrigerator magnets".

But the point needs to be driven home. You reap what you sow.

[Beery]

Speaking as a modmaker I have to say that we get blamed for everything, from game bugs and copy protection 'bugs' that are the developers fault to horrible installation practices on the part of users (i.e. installing ten mods on top of one another). We rarely ever get blamed for our own mistakes because frankly we hardly ever make them. I average one CTD-causing bug per game (I had one in Red Baron 3D, none at all in SH3 and I've had one in SH4 so far) and I usually fix any bug within hours (sometimes minutes) of it being reported. JScones had the same record - one bug that I remember in the entire time SH3 Commander was in development - yet the complaints about SH3 Commander never seemed to end.

The thing is, we modders get 999 false bug reports for every one real one, so after a while it just gets depressing - it's doubly depressing because we know we're putting an excellent product out there and 99.9% of the complaints we get are about things that frankly are either the developers' fault or the fault of the player who's reporting the 'bug'.

[NZ_Wanderer]

Hmmm, well what can I say....

Loved SH3, and a lot of the mods that people made for it, so lined up and spent $100 (NZ) to get SH4...
Did a few patrols in the first sub (sorry, not good on remembering names, but it was in '41) got offered a brand new sub cause I did good on the old one, got transferred to Pearl to pick it up, did ONE patrol on new sub, did real good, then got retired...

What the Hell is going on???? - I bought a GAME to play, sure a lot of people treat it like the real thing, and that's fine, but I like playing it as both a game with a little bit of simulatiion built in (don't laugh, but my settings are only set to 17%)
The last thing I need to find out after doing a few patrols is I am kicked out of the game (retired)
IMHO there should have been an option in the reality settings, that you could choose to be as real as it gets as far as how many patrols you could do, or keep going till you died...

I only got the chance to twice give my men medals, and ONCE give one or two an actual promotion...

To me this is WRONG!!!!

I do not care about what it was like in real life, I bought SH4 to play, not to get told I am being retired.. - sure I don't mind getting killed, as that is a risk you take, but to be forced to retire???


I was looking forward (like in SH3) to seeing if I could stay alive from 41 right through to the end of the war, but the game wouldn't even let me get past '42
..

I am not saying it is a bug, what I am saying, is there should be an option in the game to be able to play it right through as long as you stay alive, giving your crew medals, promotions etc (like in SH3)
The last patrol I did was real hard, my boat had holes in it and I could only limp back to Pearl, I had planned on which crew were gonna get which medals if they were available etc etc, but I never got the chance, I was retired...

Someone mentioned (about page 3 I think) that to beat it you just stay out, but wouldn't that mean no promotions for me or my crew, new boats, or other stuff??

Someone else also mentioned about restarting the game in the year you got retired, well I liked the crew I had, I don't want to have to start with a new crew in a new year, just cause of a stupid bit of coding says I HAVE to retire (sorry, but coding something like that in without an option to not retire IS stupid coding IMHO) doing 5-7 patrols and then the GAME finishes, is a total letdown...

After having this happen, if I could take the game back to the shop I would do, as I said, I loved SH3, and was really looking forward to SH4, but this one thing ruins the game completly for me as I loved everything in SH4 up until this happened..

I am hoping that one of our great mod makers out there can come up with something that lets us have patrols all through the war if we wish to (and can stay alive)

[Beery]

Did a few patrols in the first sub (sorry, not good on remembering names, but it was in '41) got offered a brand new sub cause I did good on the old one, got transferred to Pearl to pick it up, did ONE patrol on new sub, did real good, then got retired...

What the Hell is going on????

This is a simulation game and real submarine commanders got retired after at most eight patrols, so the game simulates that. You can play longer by rolling another sub commander and starting from the date you left off. Consider it being posted to training duties and then getting another command.

All games have restrictions and this is one of the restrictions this game imposes on us. The idea is to get the highest score in the amount of time the game gives us. Then we can compare scores in each career we have and try to get a better score in the next career.

I realise some players want to play from 1941 all the way to 1945, but that isn't what WWII submarining was all about.

[mookiemookie]

I do not care about what it was like in real life, I bought SH4 to play, not to get told I am being retired.. - sure I don't mind getting killed, as that is a risk you take, but to be forced to retire???
I understand that it is one's perogative to play the game however they want, but if you "don't care what it was like in real life", why did you buy a simulation? I agree with you that it should be a realism option that can be switched off if you want, but don't criticize a simulation for accurately simulating what it sets out to simulate.

It's akin to me complaining that games like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty aren't accurate simulations of WW2 combat. :doh:

In related news, I think I broke the record for "number of times the word 'simlation' was used in one post."

[Juju]

After getting a new Balao Sub at Pearl, I was transferred to Brisbane. When I returned to Brisbane after sinking 18 ships I was only able to refit. I traveled to Freemantle I was able to dock. Upon docking I received metals and was told that my sub class (Balao) was being retired and me along with it due to poor performance. End of career. However, I started to look into what could of show a lack of performance. Upon looking into the "CareerTrack" file, there were no entres for my last patrol out of Brisbane. For whatever reason SH4 failed to record my sinks throughout my laswt patrol and upon docking it must have concidered me an poor performer based on the "CareerTrack" file.

So, if this is a "feature," as some here are claiming, why, oh, why is the 'careertrack' not updating during the patrol prior to forced retirement (I haven't mentioned this in my previous post, but when I checked my careertrack file I saw the same thing Tony1 saw)?
I hazard a guess that -at that point- the game already 'knows' it's going to retire you when next time you dock. (hence not updating the file). If that's the case, why send a player out on a new patrol when it has somehow already been 'decided' you will not get credit for it anyway and that you're going to be retired, regardless. Doesn't sound like a feature to me, regardless how it was in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, simulation or not, this is still first and foremost a piece of computer software intended to be a GAME.
Also, if it is a feature, why tell a player his brand new Balao is being taken out of service, when it is actually only just entered? Not exactly historically accurate, now is it?
Lastly, if it is a feature, why is it not documented, why is there not a realism option to enable/disable it. From a consumer standpoint this is just not acceptable.

The only theory I've read here so far that sounded reasonable, is that careers are being terminated when the sub class you started the career with is being taking out of commision, regardless of the one you have now. Sadly, I haven't read any follow-ups on that assumption. It should probably mean people who started a career with one of the older S boats should get a forced retirement sooner than people who start one with a Tambor, or a Gar. I'd also like to know if this ever happened to people who started their career at a later date with either a Gato or a Balao.

That said, I want to add here that It's not my intention to stir up trouble, I do love the game, and I really long to play it some more. But not in the state it's in now. I don't like it, but this game stays shelved until I can decide whether I want to stop playing.

[Beery]

So, if this is a "feature," as some here are claiming, why, oh, why is the 'careertrack' not updating during the patrol prior to forced retirement (I haven't mentioned this in my previous post, but when I checked my careertrack file I saw the same thing Tony1 saw)?

SH3 (and presumably SH4) careers always update one patrol late. This caused a lot of problems with SH3 Commander. I assume the career patrol files are kept in some temporary file until they're overwritten by the next patrol, at which time they're written to the permanent file. It's just another example of the unintuitive and ass-backwards way the code in this game seems to work (or not work).

There still may be a bug here - personally I've yet to be forcibly retired so I can't say for sure either way, but one thing is for sure - this needs to be optional - you should always be asked if you want to retire. If it's a feature it needs to be made optional and if it's a bug it needs to be fixed.

[NZ_Wanderer]

Hi there Beery, haven't run into you since SH3 days :)

I've had a big sleep and a chance to think things through a lot clearer than last night, but it still doesn't change how I feel, I realise it is a simulation game, gee, I played SH3 enuff, however that being said, I htink there should have been an option so that you could choose wether or not you were retired after 5-8 patrols, after-all, not everyone that buys the game is going to be a hard-core sub-simmer.

I felt really let-down and had a real sense of anger mixed with disappointment when after my best patrol I was basically kicked out of the game losing not only all the tonnage I had sunk, but my brand new (with a few holes in it) boat, along with my brave crew, and I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same.
In SH3 I had lots of time to promote, give medals to etc my crew, in SH4, You only get 1 or 2 patrols to do something like that, for my first 4 (I think) patrols the game wouldn't even let me promote anyone on the ship, and only let me give out about 5 or 6 medals.. I couldn't even give my watch crew all purple hearts..

I'm sorry Beery, but this really spoils the game big time for me, I used to feel a great sense of achievement and pride when I was able to give my crew something for all their hard work in SH3 (even tho I didn't play ata high % like most of you guys), in SH4, with the "real" number of patrols, there is no chance of doing anything like that.
This restriction of the game/Simulation (as you mentioned above) to me is just plain wrong, and IMHO the devs could/should have put in an extra option that allow people to turn off this "restriction"

This is a simulation game and real submarine commanders got retired after at most eight patrols, so the game simulates that. You can play longer by rolling another sub commander and starting from the date you left off. Consider it being posted to training duties and then getting another command.
All games have restrictions and this is one of the restrictions this game imposes on us. The idea is to get the highest score in the amount of time the game gives us. Then we can compare scores in each career we have and try to get a better score in the next career.
I realise some players want to play from 1941 all the way to 1945, but that isn't what WWII submarining was all about.

[AVGWarhawk]

I felt really let-down and had a real sense of anger mixed with disappointment when after my best patrol I was basically kicked out of the game losing not only all the tonnage I had sunk, but my brand new (with a few holes in it) boat, along with my brave crew, and I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same.


So did a lot of RL Skippers. I like the idea of getting cut after 5-8 patrols but I think I should be an option to continue.

[NZ_Wanderer]

I bought it because I loved SH3 (and don't bother telling me to go back to SH3), and I really like the Silent hunter series as a whole, it has given me months upon months of real enjoyment up until now, heck I even sat down and designed skins for SH3..
Maybe I worded it wrong last night (I was a bit hot under the collar after getting kicked out after my best patrol), I do care to a degree, otherwise I would have turned everything off and played at 0% instead of the 17% I do play with in SH4.
Yes, if there had been an option to turn off "real" patrol times, then I wouldn't be here now involving myself in this thread running the risk of turning most subsimmers against me.:)
I play other sims (like FSX for example) but never play them "as real as it gets" and get great enjoyment out of them, but being "forced" out of a game/Simulation because that's what happened in real life is the biggest let-down I have ever come across in ANY game or Simulation I have played.

I understand that it is one's perogative to play the game however they want, but if you "don't care what it was like in real life", why did you buy a simulation? I agree with you that it should be a realism option that can be switched off if you want, but don't criticize a simulation for accurately simulating what it sets out to simulate.
It's akin to me complaining that games like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty aren't accurate simulations of WW2 combat. :doh:
In related news, I think I broke the record for "number of times the word 'simlation' was used in one post."

[NZ_Wanderer]

I'm with you here Juju, I love the game/Simulation as well, I DO want to play it (up until last night when I was forced to retire, I had been having a great time, even showing others the graphics and stuff and encouraging them to go buy it (I won't be encouraging anyone else after last night tho)), but as you said, not in the state it is in now (actually, this is the ONLY thing in the whole game/Simulation I have a problem with..)
If I get the urge to load SH4 again, I might try out that theory you mentioned in your post about the sub you started with and report back, but at the moment the urge to play SH4 again has deserted me (much like the game dersrting me cause it decided I had to retire)

The only theory I've read here so far that sounded reasonable, is that careers are being terminated when the sub class you started the career with is being taking out of commision, regardless of the one you have now. Sadly, I haven't read any follow-ups on that assumption. It should probably mean people who started a career with one of the older S boats should get a forced retirement sooner than people who start one with a Tambor, or a Gar. I'd also like to know if this ever happened to people who started their career at a later date with either a Gato or a Balao.
That said, I want to add here that It's not my intention to stir up trouble, I do love the game, and I really long to play it some more. But not in the state it's in now. I don't like it, but this game stays shelved until I can decide whether I want to stop playing.

[NZ_Wanderer]

If this had been an option in the game/Simulation right at the start when it was released, then this whole thread would never have existed, people that wanted it as real as it gets would have the option turned on, those that liked to be able to play the whole war would have it turned off...
Why oh Why, didn't they put it in?? - Or as some others have mentioned IS it a bug??? - Honestly we don't know, there has been no comment from the powers that be..

Edit: I was wrong, it has been mentioned by the powers that be (Neal)

So did a lot of RL Skippers. I like the idea of getting cut after 5-8 patrols but I think I should be an option to continue.

[mookiemookie]

Why oh Why, didn't they put it in?? - Or as some others have mentioned IS it a bug??? - Honestly we fdon't know, there has been no comment from the powers that be..
Wrong. There has been. In fact it was a coulple pages ago in this very same thread. :88)


I understand you want not to be retired after 5 patrols. The game was never meant to be that strict. And some people are still playing after more than 5 patrols, on this forum.

Obviously they're aware of the issue.

[NZ_Wanderer]

My appoligies, I never clicked on the link which lead me to what Neal said the first time I went through the thread, I must have missed his message saying that...

Hopefully, when the next patch is released there will be an option in the reality settings that will let us choose to play out the whole war instead of only a couple of years...

Wrong. There has been. In fact it was a coulple pages ago in this very same thread. :88)

[Beery]

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

[NZ_Wanderer]

All I would like to see is an option in the realism settings to be able to turn realistic patrol lengths ON or OFF...

Nothing more, nothing less... That way everyone gets what they want..

[joea]

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

Bears repeating:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/74/applauseqn3.gif

I mean the same thing could be said with the naval and merchant traffic, as well as air attack settings, thankfully those can be tweaked.

[heartc]

I also agree with Beery, and I want to add something. While having it as an option would be most desirable - or, frankly might well be a necessity to cater to the market forces that be - from a sole simulation aspect, you have to ask where to draw the line. Even if implementation of this specific option would probably not be much of a fuss, you can be sure that every "casual" player out there could think up at least one more option he personally would like to have to take away from the realism of this game and make it more easy / casual for him to enjoy. Thankfully, this game can be modded, and we already have mods out there which will provide your sub with ubber deck guns, ubber torps, ubber armor etc. "to duke it out for the fun of it" and so on. If it wouldn't be as modable, there surely would be people demanding to have just these things also added to the "realism settings".

The problem is that in a software as complex as a subsimulation, where you have to implement a working TDC, radar sets, detection rules / AI and the lot, you got only so much time to deal with catering it towards every possible player type out there and still make it actually working properly in all those modes, when in fact by its very nature - being a simulation - it should be clear from the onset to everybody that when he buys it, he will be dealt more realism than he would with, say,
Half Life 2.

As Beery noted, there have been a myriad of so-called simulations since many years now that totally failed to deliver the promise of living up to their name. So I share the same reservations against when I see people coming in here to blast a realism feature for not being optional. This is a simulation, or at least it attempts to and has a hard time with it anyway in some regards. The only legitimate complaints in light of what I said should then only be directed against a lack of realism, not a lack of fiction. I realize the market forces disagree, but there is also a market of opinion out there and a forum dedicated to subSIMULATIONS ought to be the place where this may be spoken out frankly. U-Boat captains mostly sailed until sunk, captured, or the end of the war. US Skippers sailed until retired from combat duty after 5-7 patrols. This is not a bug, not a nuisance, not something to complain about, it is a realism feature in a simulation. If the devs decide to make this optional, all is well, but if they don't and leave it as it is, all is well, too.

There was a time when simulations were laudated and praised the more merciless realism features they could come up with. Today, when you read popular gaming mags and most boards, you realize that they are judged by
1. Graphics
2. Accessibility
3. Performance
Realism comes as an afterthought, with many reviewers not even able to judge on this because they are totally unfamiliar with the subject and have no idea what they are talking about.
If a developer team is still trying to produce ANY serious simulation in such a market environment, harrassing them over a realism feature is surely out of place in my opinion. We have enough Novalogic-type "sims" out there. And if people just want to blow stuff up, they have an even broader spectrum to choose from.

My 0.02$.

[Takeda Shingen]

Let me be totally frank here. I think a big problem the arcade and less hardcore crowd are running into here is that the hardcore crowd have been sidelined for so long that when a game comes along that includes a hardcore element like enforced career limits we jump to its defence as if we're defending our very civilization (which, in a way, we are). The fear I have, and I'm sure many hardcore simmers feel the same way, is that this realism feature will be taken away from us completely, and we'll be forced to create our own half-assed way of ending careers after a realistically short length of time (as we had to for SH3 until SH3 Commander came along). The non-hardcore players might be happy with removing the career patrol limitations altogether, but it will leave us hardcore folks sidelined yet again, as we have been in so many (SO MANY) so-called simulations that failed to simulate to the degree we prefer.

What's needed here are options, but sadly all too often we hear calls for this realism feature to be removed altogether. The more casual players don't want such realism and they don't really consider that there are a bunch of players who DO want this feature. If we have options we can all have what we want. So I guess this is a call to all of the more casual players out there: don't just say "This sucks!" or "why does it have to be this way?" or "Remove this ridiculous limitation". Remember that some of us prefer it this way and suggest (as some have done) that not having a limitation be an option.

Actually, with the exception of a small number of very, shall we say, vehement proponents, the vast majority of those who are having issue with the feature in this thread are calling for it to be an option.

[Beery]

Actually, with the exception of a small number of very, shall we say, vehement proponents, the vast majority of those who are having issue with the feature in this thread are calling for it to be an option.

That may be true, but when the issue comes up initially it's always with a sort of high-pitched whine saying "Aaargh, BUG! The game keeps retiring me! Stop it!"

That first post is likely to be the one the devs read.

Anyway, I didn't say the folks calling for a nerf were in the majority. I just said their posts came up all too often.

Having said that, it seems clear from what the devs have said that this is a bug and only 'accidentally realistic'. As such it should be fixed, but in a way that preserves the realism for those of us who want it.

[Mudrik]

I have just had to start a new career because of involuntary mothballing (ooh matron).

I have used the latest Flavoured to taste to hopefully stop this from happening again and started my new career from Jan 1943, the year that my old career was terminated.

One thing that I was quite miffed about was the fact that I lost all of my stats by starting a new career, so I looked into the situation and found that by editing the new "CareerTrack" UPC in my game save I could continue with my old tonnage and player ranking.

It would have also be possible to keep my old crew from the previous career but it would require so much editing of "ActivePlayerUnits" that I couldn't be bothered.

Maybe a helpfull tip though for all of you that have suffered the same loss of personal kudos

[NZ_Wanderer]

Thank you for your 0.02$ worth, but I think the statement you made below is wrong...
This is a forum for people that have bought the game/simulation called Silent Hunter 4 (and others) - and as such we have a perfect right to come in here and voice our opinions about aspects of Silent Hunter 4 that we like or dislike.
I have been around here for quite a while now, and have read and posted a lot of messages both in praise and in disagreement with Silent hunter 3, and I plan on doing the same with Silent Hunter 4.
If my disagreement with this "feature" is out of place, then I expect a Mod or Neal to move/delete it, until then please respect my right to voice my options when I say that there should be an option for those that do not wish to be forced to retire from the game/simulation.
Notice, I am referring to SH4 as a "game/simulation", I am doing so, because IMHO it is both a game and a simulation, I treat it more as a game than a simulation (although I do try to play certain aspects as a simulation) whereas others treat it as a pure simulation..
Best regards and good hunting...

If a developer team is still trying to produce ANY serious simulation in such a market environment, harrassing them over a realism feature is surely out of place in my opinion. We have enough Novalogic-type "sims" out there. My 0.02$.

[marky]

totally

this game is a disgrace, which is ironic cuz ive been a pretty damn good defender of thios piece of garbage

[vindex]

Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option.

I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

[FooFighters]

Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option.

I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

If this would be possible.. I'll go for realism :D

[Torpex752]

The Only thing thats an issue for me is crew experience. All WWII sub CO's did only 4-5 patrols as CO, (a few did more after a break) however they did another 2-3 as XO and who knows how many as a Junior Officer? Same thing with the crew, at least 50% were seasoned vets. So ending the career after 5-6 patrols makes sense because by that 5th patrol you probably have been at sea for 10+. I just dont like that it takes 3-4 patrols to get a tough experienced crew.

Just a comment.

Frank
:cool:

[Beery]

Most of the discussion here revolves around giving people a choice between unlimited patrols and a realistic career. Yes, I agree the option should be implemented. But the "retirement" screens also need to be fixed. As it is now, it says your class sub is being retired (even if it isn't) and you're a big failure (even if you clearly are not). What a "realistic" option should do is give you a reasonable assessment of your career. If you really sucked, they should cashier you after 3 patrols and tell you "you suck". If you won the Congressional Medal of Honor (or whatever they're calling it), they should give you 7-8 patrols and then ship you back stateside to be a big hero. In between, you should get 5-6 patrols and then get a promotion to a staff job. It might also be nice if you could use your accumulated renown to beg your way back into a boat command that begins a year or two later, bringing your prior career stats with you (minus the renown you spent -- you're taking a risk). If it were designed this way, I might actually pick the realism option.

I cannot imagine that any of this would be too difficult to code. I remember playing games back in the late 1980s that gave you these kinds of assessments/options at the end. It's just a bunch of "IF THEN" directions.

In my opinion that's exactly how it should work. I'd go for that! :up:

[joea]

The Only thing thats an issue for me is crew experience. All WWII sub CO's did only 4-5 patrols as CO, (a few did more after a break) however they did another 2-3 as XO and who knows how many as a Junior Officer? Same thing with the crew, at least 50% were seasoned vets. So ending the career after 5-6 patrols makes sense because by that 5th patrol you probably have been at sea for 10+. I just dont like that it takes 3-4 patrols to get a tough experienced crew.

Just a comment.

Frank
:cool:

Which is why SH3 Commander gives you a mix of seasned and green crew to start your career with...though I suppose the proportion was different between the KM and USN.