How much sim is too much sim?

[daft]

I'm a bit curious as to why so few complain about certain realism aspects of the WWII subsims on the market. Take the freedom issue for example. I can't recall ever seeing a complaint about the fact that we freely can set the torpedo depth and deactivate the magnetic exploder if we so desire without any consequences, but numerous people have observed - and complained about - stuff like number of screw blades and the direction they spin in. And let's not even mention the belt buckle bug. ;) In real life we'd get pounded on for overexpenditure of torps, fiddling with depth settings and exploders, stuff that's dictated by official doctrine. Continuos disobediance would render us without a boat to command. Also, we would be shuffled around quite a bit when on patrol (just see the orders issued to all boats in the path of the damaged japanese carriers after the Coral Sea battles) and failiure to show up at the correct spot right on time could also have serious consequences for a skipper.

This isn't a rant about complaining, rather an observation and perhaps a starting point for discussions on what should be modelled in an ultra-realistic simulation. Why are certain aspect missed while others, that appear to be more relevant in a simulation context, hardly ever gets mentioned? Discuss. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

That's it! We are busting you down to buck Private for talking out of order....J/K. We are only a week into the release, it will take some time to get an idea of how much sim is too much sim. In my book, there is never enough sim!

[daft]

That's it! We are busting you down to buck Private for talking out of order....J/K. We are only a week into the release, it will take some time

Haha! Sorry, I should have posted this in the general forum or something as I wasn't referring to SH4 alone. It holds true for all WWII subsims released to date I think. :)

[OddjobXL]

Actually, in the US, we did things a bit differently. Read up on what the submariners were doing in the Pacific and it was almost all improvisation and experimentation especially given the often faulty and experimental gear these guys were using. You'll see constant examples of captains determining something was wrong with how torpedos were running and experimenting with different solutions. Some regular seamen would even write up suggestions for how to improve gear and the like and would send it up the chain (though they didn't always get the credit they claimed to have deserved). And experiments didn't run to just observing enemy operations and vessels or their own munitions.

In "Thunder Below" for example, they started noticing these dark patches of water in one are they were patrolling. The weather had been miserable and on the rare occasions it wasn't enemy planes were swooping in. So the captain decided to experiment and explore these things, get the crews mind off a morale wrecking patrol, so they could be documented and sent to the survey service. Turns out, whatever they were, it caused the submarine to lose relative boyancy, sink like a rock, and they had to blow ballast to get to the surface again.

Another time they went into shallower waters than subs are supposed to be operating in, the remaining wolfpack member with them told them to go stuff it when asked if he wanted to come along, and sank a bunch of Japanese ships in a harbor. Running at flank speed, on the surface, they were chased by warships. And in order to keep speed up they had to remove the governor from the engines. I think the author (also the captain) claimed they set a surface speed record for submarines that day.

On and on and on you find these guys operating by the seats of their pants. Regulations, shmegulations.

[Ducimus]

oweee my head.....

Too early to talk about realism. Games been out only a week or so, and really, at this stage in the game its more of an issue of making things more playable (IE less annoying) whilst we wait for the next patch.

[SteamWake]

Actually, in the US, we did things a bit differently. Read up on what the submariners were doing in the Pacific and it was almost all improvisation and experimentation especially given the often faulty and experimental gear these guys were using.

Enough about the belt buckels already !!! :p

[Egan]

I agree about changing the detonator on the warheads. As far as I know, if you wanted to change the detonator IRL, you had to open up the torp and manually change it, which could take quite a bit of time. Being ordered to use the Magnetic one and being censured because of failing to do so would be a nice touch.

I dunno. I suppose most people comment on what they notice or know about. Personally i would love it if the sim detailed lots of things that were important in real life: trim dives, equipment malfunctions, able to run decks awash and a whole host of hardcore features that would probably end up being ignored by most people. I'm probably in the minority. A lot of people want to be able to go where they want and sink whatever. Options I guess....I want a sim that accurately reflects what a USN skipper (or U-boat skipper,) was likely to face during the war whether it is being unable to surface for more than 5 mins on Biscay or being told off for using impact detonators. Some people don't want that and I could always use a set of Iron man rules for myself but it would be nice for those things to have some effect in the sim instead of just my head.

[daft]

Actually, in the US, we did things a bit differently. Read up on what the submariners were doing in the Pacific and it was almost all improvisation and experimentation especially given the often faulty and experimental gear these guys were using. You'll see constant examples of captains determining something was wrong with how torpedos were running and experimenting with different solutions. Some regular seamen would even write up suggestions for how to improve gear and the like and would send it up the chain (though they didn't always get the credit they claimed to have deserved). And experiments didn't run to just observing enemy operations and vessels or their own munitions.

In "Thunder Below" for example, they started noticing these dark patches of water in one are they were patrolling. The weather had been miserable and on the rare occasions it wasn't enemy planes were swooping in. So the captain decided to experiment and explore these things, get the crews mind off a morale wrecking patrol, so they could be documented and sent to the survey service. Turns out, whatever they were, it caused the submarine to lose relative boyancy, sink like a rock, and they had to blow ballast to get to the surface again.

Another time they went into shallower waters than subs are supposed to be operating in, the remaining wolfpack member with them told them to go stuff it when asked if he wanted to come along, and sank a bunch of Japanese ships in a harbor. Running at flank speed, on the surface, they were chased by warships. And in order to keep speed up they had to remove the governor from the engines. I think the author (also the captain) claimed they set a surface speed record for submarines that day.

On and on and on you find these guys operating by the seats of their pants. Regulations, shmegulations.

True, but the torp issue was very sensitive for some admirals early in the war, and fiddling around too much generated some scathing endorsements to patrol reports. English was'nt very happy about his skippers modifying the torp settings and neither was Withers. Granted, it was early in the war before the full fiasco of the poor torpedo performance had been laid bare, but still. If you fired a torp without the magnetic exploder enabled and didn't get the desired results (a sinking or damage to the target) chances were the skipper would be blamed, not the torp. Some CO's even manipulated their patrol reports in order to hide the fact that they had deactivated the mag exploder because they knew the higher ups wouldn't be very pleased, which of course helped hide the defect. Otherwise I fully agree with your post. The US submarine service was indeed quite flexible in certain issues. Not so in the torpedo debacle early in the war. :)

[daft]

oweee my head.....

Too early to talk about realism. Games been out only a week or so, and really, at this stage in the game its more of an issue of making things more playable (IE less annoying) whilst we wait for the next patch.

See my earlier post. ;y original post should have been posted somewhere else on the forum since I was speaking more generally about subsims, and SH4 was just used as an example. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Actually, in the US, we did things a bit differently. Read up on what the submariners were doing in the Pacific and it was almost all improvisation and experimentation especially given the often faulty and experimental gear these guys were using.
Enough about the belt buckels already !!! :p


Without the belt buckles my crews pants end up around their ankles:o

[AVGWarhawk]

oweee my head.....

Too early to talk about realism. Games been out only a week or so, and really, at this stage in the game its more of an issue of making things more playable (IE less annoying) whilst we wait for the next patch.

Could not have said it better myself:up:

[Onkel Neal]

I'm a bit curious as to why so few complain about certain realism aspects of the WWII subsims on the market. Take the freedom issue for example. I can't recall ever seeing a complaint about the fact that we freely can set the torpedo depth and deactivate the magnetic exploder if we so desire without any consequences, but numerous people have observed - and complained about - stuff like number of screw blades and the direction they spin in. And let's not even mention the belt buckle bug. ;) In real life we'd get pounded on for overexpenditure of torps, fiddling with depth settings and exploders, stuff that's dictated by official doctrine. Continuos disobediance would render us without a boat to command. Also, we would be shuffled around quite a bit when on patrol (just see the orders issued to all boats in the path of the damaged japanese carriers after the Coral Sea battles) and failiure to show up at the correct spot right on time could also have serious consequences for a skipper.

This isn't a rant about complaining, rather an observation and perhaps a starting point for discussions on what should be modelled in an ultra-realistic simulation. Why are certain aspect missed while others, that appear to be more relevant in a simulation context, hardly ever gets mentioned? Discuss. :)


I'm all for modeling every aspect possible that makes a simulation realistic, but of course, anyone with sense knows that is not possible. I break it down into three categories:

#1 Essential for gameplay and add immersion; needed to make the sim functional, playable, interesting for the player. By default, adds immerison. Needed to avoid arcade gameplay.
#2 Adds to the gameplay and immersion; not essential to making the game function as a subsim but helps suspend the player's imagination, aids in allowing the player captain the sub and simulate the experience.
#3 Bonus stuff; adds to both #1 and #2 but is not essential, could be one of a million details that would add to the game. Great to have, game needs some but players will always argue there are not enough.

Examples
#1: realistic map that uses player input only (no God's-eye real-time view of ships, one of the realism options) that compels the player to learn how to map contacts, develop spatial orientation; detailed, functional TDC that allows the player to build skills and actually do something besides aim the periscope; historically accurate physics and ship models with life-like AI and unit behavior (so the player can forget he is playing a game and actually begin to personify the pixels; realistic sensors and sailing/speed/duration limitations, good graphics that encourage the player to visually look for targets, and neutral/hostile/friendly unit ID preocedures--this is the big chess balance that makes the player think and form tactics; port-to-port missions, populated harbors, effective enemy ASW defences, etc.

#2: Radio traffic, additional stations (capt.'s bunk, radio shack, and someday, engine room and torpedo compartments, etc), 3D crew (interactive or not); rig for red lighting and accompanying effects for playing in the dark, etc.

#3: Subs have limber holes, limber holes stream water, external views, observation scope, sausages hanging from the ceiling, belt buckles, crew needs a shave, lifeboats, girls throwing flowers from the pier, propellers turning whichever way, working bildge pump, being able to manually rig in the dive planes, correct number of rivets in the forward 5-inch gun platform, etc.

I prefer more emphasis on #1's and #2's, naturally. I play for the experience of being on a sub in hostile waters, employing the same tactics, facing the same risks, and crowing over the same triumphs as the real thing. There will always be cool things we hardcore players want but the dev team has to balance what they can do, against how many people will actually use it. For example, there was a lot of clamoring to have SH3 model a second periscope, and observation scope. How many people actually use it? Essentially, it's the same thing as the attack scope. Nice to have but not at the expense of a #1 or #2 item :)

These games have come a long way.

Neal

[OddjobXL]

See, now, I play for the nurses throwing flowers from the docks...

[clayton]

You see this with the differences between SH3 and our European brothers and SH4. Us Americans will bitch and bitch, lower our heads and figure it out -- just like those young, prospective officers in 42 did! Same way with modding SH4. I don't need to be a part of the 'Gun Club', I mean the SH3 forum, to scream, rant and rave until I play the kind of game I had envisioned. It's funny; You see all these posters (Old Guys) at the SH4 forum from 2002, 2003, 2004 with like only 20 - 30 posts who have been biding their time to get back to the Pacific. :|\\

We want realism just like our SH3 brothers, we just don't want to have to stroke your ego to get it! :lol:

[daft]

I'm a bit curious as to why so few complain about certain realism aspects of the WWII subsims on the market. Take the freedom issue for example. I can't recall ever seeing a complaint about the fact that we freely can set the torpedo depth and deactivate the magnetic exploder if we so desire without any consequences, but numerous people have observed - and complained about - stuff like number of screw blades and the direction they spin in. And let's not even mention the belt buckle bug. ;) In real life we'd get pounded on for overexpenditure of torps, fiddling with depth settings and exploders, stuff that's dictated by official doctrine. Continuos disobediance would render us without a boat to command. Also, we would be shuffled around quite a bit when on patrol (just see the orders issued to all boats in the path of the damaged japanese carriers after the Coral Sea battles) and failiure to show up at the correct spot right on time could also have serious consequences for a skipper.

This isn't a rant about complaining, rather an observation and perhaps a starting point for discussions on what should be modelled in an ultra-realistic simulation. Why are certain aspect missed while others, that appear to be more relevant in a simulation context, hardly ever gets mentioned? Discuss. :)


I'm all for modeling every aspect possible that makes a simulation realistic, but of course, anyone with sense knows that is not possible. I break it down into three categories:

#1 Essential for gameplay and add immersion; needed to make the sim functional, playable, interesting for the player. By default, adds immerison. Needed to avoid arcade gameplay.
#2 Adds to the gameplay and immersion; not essential to making the game function as a subsim but helps suspend the player's imagination, aids in allowing the player captain the sub and simulate the experience.
#3 Bonus stuff; adds to both #1 and #2 but is not essential, could be one of a million details that would add to the game. Great to have, game needs some but players will always argue there are not enough.

Examples
#1: realistic map that uses player input only (no God's-eye real-time view of ships, one of the realism options) that compels the player to learn how to map contacts, develop spatial orientation; detailed, functional TDC that allows the player to build skills and actually do something besides aim the periscope; historically accurate physics and ship models with life-like AI and unit behavior (so the player can forget he is playing a game and actually begin to personify the pixels; realistic sensors and sailing/speed/duration limitations, good graphics that encourage the player to visually look for targets, and neutral/hostile/friendly unit ID preocedures--this is the big chess balance that makes the player think and form tactics; port-to-port missions, populated harbors, effective enemy ASW defences, etc.

#2: Radio traffic, additional stations (capt.'s bunk, radio shack, and someday, engine room and torpedo compartments, etc), 3D crew (interactive or not); rig for red lighting and accompanying effects for playing in the dark, etc.

#3: Subs have limber holes, limber holes stream water, external views, observation scope, sausages hanging from the ceiling, belt buckles, crew needs a shave, lifeboats, girls throwing flowers from the pier, propellers turning whichever way, working bildge pump, being able to manually rig in the dive planes, correct number of rivets in the forward 5-inch gun platform, etc.

I prefer more emphasis on #1's and #2's, naturally. I play for the experience of being on a sub in hostile waters, employing the same tactics, facing the same risks, and crowing over the same triumphs as the real thing. There will always be cool things we hardcore players want but the dev team has to balance what they can do, against how many people will actually use it. For example, there was a lot of clamoring to have SH3 model a second periscope, and observation scope. How many people actually use it? Essentially, it's the same thing as the attack scope. Nice to have but not at the expense of a #1 or #2 item :)

These games have come a long way.

Neal

Excellent post Neal, and just what I was fishing for. :) I agree with everything except the two scopes issue. ;) I've found the observation scope to be really useful in foul weather attacks and for checking for contacts before surfacing. But then again the clamoring you mentioned is a bit indivative of the vocal part of the simulation community. For some, certain things really need to be in the game for it to be "real" while other stuff that was indeed big issues for the commanders of the time are completely forgotten. Still, it all boils down to gameplay just as it does for most mainstream games (shooters, racing etc). As you said, it's all about suspension of disbelief, and I guess there are as many definitions of what it takes to suspend disbelief as there are gamers/simmers. :)

[daft]

You see this with the differences between SH3 and our European brothers and SH4. Us Americans will bitch and bitch, lower our heads and figure it out -- just like those young, prospective officers in 42 did! Same way with modding SH4. I don't need to be a part of the 'Gun Club', I mean the SH3 forum, to scream, rant and rave until I play the kind of game I had envisioned. It's funny; You see all these posters (Old Guys) at the SH4 forum from 2002, 2003, 2004 with like only 20 - 30 posts who have been biding their time to get back to the Pacific. :|\\

We want realism just like our SH3 brothers, we just don't want to have to stroke your ego to get it! :lol:

I really hope my original post didn't come across as a rant against any lack of realism in SH4 or a rant against ranters, because it wasn't intended as any of those two things. :) I really enjoy the game as it is, but only because it is a game that tries to simulate an area I'm interested in. The gameplay really is there, and I do really feel like a US submarine commander even if the screws turn the wrong way, the belt bucle modelling is way off and I don't get screamed at for waisting torps or deactivating the magnetic exploders. :)

[clayton]

You see this with the differences between SH3 and our European brothers and SH4. Us Americans will bitch and bitch, lower our heads and figure it out -- just like those young, prospective officers in 42 did! Same way with modding SH4. I don't need to be a part of the 'Gun Club', I mean the SH3 forum, to scream, rant and rave until I play the kind of game I had envisioned. It's funny; You see all these posters (Old Guys) at the SH4 forum from 2002, 2003, 2004 with like only 20 - 30 posts who have been biding their time to get back to the Pacific. :|\\

We want realism just like our SH3 brothers, we just don't want to have to stroke your ego to get it! :lol:

I really hope my original post didn't come across as a rant against any lack of realism in SH4 or a rant against ranters, because it wasn't intended as any of those two things. :) I really enjoy the game as it is, but only because it is a game that tries to simulate an area I'm interested in. The gameplay really is there, and I do really feel like a US submarine commander even if the screws turn the wrong way, the belt bucle modelling is way off and I don't get screamed at for waisting torps or deactivating the magnetic exploders. :)

No, no man, everything is cool. You brought up an excellent idea, that quite frankly, I thought would be included in the game. I just needed to get this off my chest and I feel much better now. :D

I would love to see penalties for your actions in the game. It may help reduce some of those 50K and up tonnage scores and make it more, dare I say, realistic.

[tater]

Good post, neal. Got me thinking about another part of simulation. While I agree with your #1 example, the question does become "WHO are we simulating?" If the answer is "the skipper of the boat," then the tasks that were done by the skipper should be done by the player, and the tasks done by his crew should be done by his crew. There will of course be some blur with various jobs for playability, and also because the game just cannot model the intelligence of your officers and men properly.

That said, if the guy looking out the periscope's job on attack was line it up, and say "mark!" then drop the scope, and others marked the map, entered data in the TDC, etc, then that's what should happen. Forcing 1 player to have to mark the map, for example, when he'd have crew do it is time he must spend that he could be doing some task that he actually would be doing.

So for the maps, I'd prefer a less radar-GPS-like thing, and one that might require that I click a key when I pass a target, then the game can have a voice (of the right crew member) say "aye, aye, enemy Fox Tare bearing 232, plotting on map" or something. Then a line appears on the battle map at that bearing. Make another observation, hit the keyt a few minutes later, and a new line from your sub's path (drawn on map, leaving a trail) comes out at that bearing. That sort of semi-automation that makes generating a solution interesting, but not 100% player elbow grease.

Kind of rambling, but does that make any sense?

tater

[daft]

Good post, neal. Got me thinking about another part of simulation. While I agree with your #1 example, the question does become "WHO are we simulating?" If the answer is "the skipper of the boat," then the tasks that were done by the skipper should be done by the player, and the tasks done by his crew should be done by his crew. There will of course be some blur with various jobs for playability, and also because the game just cannot model the intelligence of your officers and men properly.

That said, if the guy looking out the periscope's job on attack was line it up, and say "mark!" then drop the scope, and others marked the map, entered data in the TDC, etc, then that's what should happen. Forcing 1 player to have to mark the map, for example, when he'd have crew do it is time he must spend that he could be doing some task that he actually would be doing.

So for the maps, I'd prefer a less radar-GPS-like thing, and one that might require that I click a key when I pass a target, then the game can have a voice (of the right crew member) say "aye, aye, enemy Fox Tare bearing 232, plotting on map" or something. Then a line appears on the battle map at that bearing. Make another observation, hit the keyt a few minutes later, and a new line from your sub's path (drawn on map, leaving a trail) comes out at that bearing. That sort of semi-automation that makes generating a solution interesting, but not 100% player elbow grease.

Kind of rambling, but does that make any sense?

tater

It does indeed make sense! The sim comunity in general seems quite technical or task oriented. Every little thing should be modelled and handled by the player. or the option to do everything yourself should at least be included. It's very rare to see someone focusing on the different roles of a boat/aircraft/whatever and simulate the experience to the hilt. I for one would love to see something along the lines of what you suggested as the potential for immersion and pure gameplay appeal would be enormous. So go on, get into game design ASAP! :)

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

In "Thunder Below" for example, they started noticing these dark patches of water in one are they were patrolling. The weather had been miserable and on the rare occasions it wasn't enemy planes were swooping in. So the captain decided to experiment and explore these things, get the crews mind off a morale wrecking patrol, so they could be documented and sent to the survey service. Turns out, whatever they were, it caused the submarine to lose relative boyancy, sink like a rock, and they had to blow ballast to get to the surface again.


Probably to do with water salinity, but no idea it could be with odd different coloured patches.

[OddjobXL]

Very good! That's exactly what they came up with as a best guess. That somehow a fresh water source was pouring up into the ocean from somewhere but they couldn't really confirm that for sure.

As for immersion vs detailed modelling, well, that's something I've been writing extensively about in another forum. There's a guy named Bartle who did alot of writing about what motivates players in MUDs (and by extension MMORPGs). He came up with various profiles and he's rather well known for it in those circles. One of my longstanding issues with his profiles is he doesn't account for players who do desire immersion in online games. I coined the term 'believer' to describe players who are motivated along these lines (his categories are: achiever, explorer, killer and socializer). Their big question about a game element would be "is this believeable?" Other folks who study roleplayers have come up with the term "simulationist" for someone like this but I think that muddles things.

The believer doesn't need every little thing nailed down with incredible realism. All he needs is an illusion that exhibits versimilitude. While a believer values fidelity to the source material only the most important mythic, characteristic, qualities need to be thoroughly examined. Too many details forced on him and he quickly finds himself 'twiddling knobs' more than experiencing the situation he's trying to immerse himself in. For example, in a game like Panzer Elite (for anyone who remembers that classic sim) you could often feel like you were working harder than a real tanker having to deal with historically realistic, hardcore, gameplay as channeled through the limited interface that's a PC and a keyboard. Futzing about with too much detail is as big an immersion breaker as a game that shows little concern with realism.

I'd also be tempted to steal a note from tater and even narrow the concept of the believer-gamer to someone who is trying to experience the simulation of a role rather than a particular bit of hardware. He wants interactive crewmen, dynamic campaigns, all the context that gets him thinking along the lines of the fellow who's shoes he's supposedly wearing - but not too much more.

The other kind of gamer that's deeply involved with sims is someone I'll call, respectfully, a gearhead. This is the guy who needs to know precise stats for every bit of instrumentation, the exact quality of the stains on a cook's apron (what kind of grease did they cook with? My textures must be perfect!), and so on. He may not be impressed with animated crewmen, likely hates even having to deal with 'crew' mechanics of any kind, and could even see dynamic campaigns as a distraction - a scenario builder, with its controlled conditions, to test out all kind of situations is much more important so as to prove the historical accuracy of the gear being simulated. Every single part of it must work so he can get in there and play with it himself. If a gearhead could he'd build his own damn sub in the backyard and race it around the pool. And if things don't work properly he'll get his hands dirty and fix them himself via modding.

A gearhead, by Bartle's definitions, is a subset of the explorer-type. Someone who likes to discover new things. The gearhead is constantly looking for a better simulation, or to discover all the problems with someone else's version, or new tricks hidden in the code to make things work more along the lines he envisions. Less flatteringly, gearheads that lack social graces are often known as rivetcounters. Because if there's one too few rivets in that wing-strut, well, you'll be hearing about it. And maybe looking at a petition for a lawsuit.

I'd say most simmers are part believer and part gearhead to one extent or another. Believers that know a huge amount about a subject may well need more gearhead details in a game in order to feel immersion. They know they "should" be able to do something and if they can't it's frustrating. The experience they're looking to be immersed in eludes them. Maybe a captain didn't plot his own targets on the map on a regular basis but, if he felt the need, he could shove a guy out of the way and take over. That whole modelled crew mechanic of SHIII was priceless.

Anyhow, sorry for going off on a ramble. Just something I've had on my mind alot lately.

[1mPHUNit0]

Too long
A resumè?!?

[WFGood]

I would agree with Neal. You can go too far and remove the fun from playing the game if you go for complete fidelity. For example, if we modeled the war exactly as it occurred, then we would drive a lot of people away from the game. There were very few subs that actually engaged or at least got a shot at a carrier or battleship. How much fun would the game be if we removed the number of contacts that we saw on patrol. The same could be said for merchant traffic. The Pacific is much larger than the Atlantic, and the average war patrol did not encounter large amounts of traffic, especially late in the war. The torpedo depth and exploder settings would be a realistic addition, but how many people would play if they knew that they would not be able to sink anything for quite a while? It is a balancing act and trade offs have to be made.

[Rykaird]

In "Thunder Below" for example, they started noticing these dark patches of water in one are they were patrolling. The weather had been miserable and on the rare occasions it wasn't enemy planes were swooping in. So the captain decided to experiment and explore these things, get the crews mind off a morale wrecking patrol, so they could be documented and sent to the survey service. Turns out, whatever they were, it caused the submarine to lose relative boyancy, sink like a rock, and they had to blow ballast to get to the surface again.


Probably to do with water salinity, but no idea it could be with odd different coloured patches.

Also sounds like some of the more recent attempts to explain the Bermuda Triangle - methane gas pockets.

Anyway, realism is great. The more the better. However, where realism adds difficulty, create options to water it down so the game becomes playable to newcomers and casual gamers.

For example, in SHIII I was never able to really have fun at 100% realism - I needed that "Gods-eye-view" realism relaxation to make the game truly playable for me. TC is clearly not "real" but is a good example where you can play at 1x if you wish, or compress if you wish - the perfect answer. Real when you want it, but only when you want it.

Right now, all I really want out of the SH series is more toys. The TDC (in SHIII, and when fixed I'm sure SHIV will be the same) is one of the best toys I've ever played with. I love the hydrophone. I want to be able to play with the dive planes and and the ballast tanks. For me, having a more realistic periscope is not the problem. I just want more systems.

[Onkel Neal]

You see this with the differences between SH3 and our European brothers and SH4. Us Americans will bitch and bitch, lower our heads and figure it out -- just like those young, prospective officers in 42 did! Same way with modding SH4. I don't need to be a part of the 'Gun Club', I mean the SH3 forum, to scream, rant and rave until I play the kind of game I had envisioned. It's funny; You see all these posters (Old Guys) at the SH4 forum from 2002, 2003, 2004 with like only 20 - 30 posts who have been biding their time to get back to the Pacific. :|\\

We want realism just like our SH3 brothers, we just don't want to have to stroke your ego to get it! :lol:
I really hope my original post didn't come across as a rant against any lack of realism in SH4 or a rant against ranters, because it wasn't intended as any of those two things. :) I really enjoy the game as it is, but only because it is a game that tries to simulate an area I'm interested in. The gameplay really is there, and I do really feel like a US submarine commander even if the screws turn the wrong way, the belt bucle modelling is way off and I don't get screamed at for waisting torps or deactivating the magnetic exploders. :)
No, no man, everything is cool. You brought up an excellent idea, that quite frankly, I thought would be included in the game. I just needed to get this off my chest and I feel much better now. :D

I would love to see penalties for your actions in the game. It may help reduce some of those 50K and up tonnage scores and make it more, dare I say, realistic.
Agreed. Good topic for discussion, Henric.:yep:


Anyway, realism is great. The more the better. However, where realism adds difficulty, create options to water it down so the game becomes playable to newcomers and casual gamers.

Yes, the best approach is optional realism settings, just as you said.

[Onkel Neal]

I'd say most simmers are part believer and part gearhead to one extent or another. Believers that know a huge amount about a subject may well need more gearhead details in a game in order to feel immersion. They know they "should" be able to do something and if they can't it's frustrating. The experience they're looking to be immersed in eludes them. Maybe a captain didn't plot his own targets on the map on a regular basis but, if he felt the need, he could shove a guy out of the way and take over. That whole modelled crew mechanic of SHIII was priceless.

Well said!

I think, with the wide range of people who like various types of players, there will always be some amount of compromise needed to create a popular and successful simulation. Yes, as you said, there is a need for some amount of "gearhead" details" in order to create the simulation atmosphere and gameplay. I have an intuitive "minimum", 'm sure each of us has, where I expect certain gearhead details in order to consider the title a "simulation" and not a "game". And of course, I'm always open to additional simulation details, the more the better. I may call for additional details. It would be cool to have more stations to visit in the sub, and be able to manage the ballast system, etc. I draw the line at castigating the developer/publisher if they don't model these bits. Because in the past, it seemed the simulation community was never satisfied, and created a peer pressure culture of bashing anyone who was not "hardcore". We have a bad habit of pointing out the things we think are wrong, even trivial details, and not exuding over the abundance of features and touting the things that work.

SH3 introduced a little RPG in the game with the crew management, and 3D crew, and I like it a lot. Sure, we can't click on them (tag: you’re it!) and get an orders menu, but as I tried to show in my videos, they do interact with your orders (turning and looking at the player, nodding, repeating orders, etc). It's a great aspect of a really good sim.


My 2 cents….

Neal

[daft]

[Snip...]

Anyhow, sorry for going off on a ramble. Just something I've had on my mind alot lately.

Excellent post! I've found that I've drifted over more to looking for the experience of acting out a certain role in the context of a simulated reality as opposed to the more hardcore gearhead attitude I had as a wee lad (I've turned 30 for crying out loud! :stare:). What Neal mentioned about the RPG elements introduced in SH3 could very well be a sort of paradiigm shift in simulation that will allow us (thanks to the increasing capacity of modern home PC's) to have very different experiences of the same game. A sort of scalable virtual world where gearheads and more roleplay oriented gamers both can customize their experiences through optional parameters. Either you play in loosly defined historical context, not constrained by historical doctrines (like suffering consequences for not obeying orders) with the ability to play a wide variety of roles and micro manage your imediate surrondings (doing sonar, radar, TDC calcs etc.). In this universe the strict rules are more technical in nature with every conceivable piece of machinery modelled in detail. The roleplayers on the other hand find their immersion in adhering to historical orders, and suffering from the same misstakes their historical counterparts did (You stray from the patrol area and you WILL suffer the consequences). Here the roles outside of the person or role you are trying to simulate is closed off, and control handed to either AI or another person via multiplayer. Both categories are experiencing the same world and the same historical context, but from different perspectives. I like the sound of it. :)

[perisher]

This will be a never ending argument as we all have our own idea of the perfect balance between game play and realistic simulation. The developer is between a rock and a hard place with this. The modder can say "Take it or leave it!" but the developer must produce a product that will appeal to the majority. Here we are lucky that Ubisoft have not taken the ultimate marketing approach of making a product doesn't offend anyone, rather than one that will certainly please a fairly well defined group. It could so easily have been an arcade game.

Personally I love the graphics and the immersion factor, but I would trade off a lot of the graphics for more realism. I would like something like the control that a real crew have over their boat. I would like to be able to select engines or electric motors for surface running, so I could make silent approaches. I would like to be able to switch my batteries from parallel to series, to trade off power against endurance. I would like some control over the ballast system, not trying to keep a trim, that's a full time job, but the ability to use the negative buoyancy tank (Q tank) for a quick dive, as a trade off over control of the dive. Maybe a choice between venting tanks outboard or inboard, so I can be quiet but at a cost of too much air pressure in the boat. I would like to see the possibility of broaching when firing multiple torpedoes, maybe as a factor of the diving officer's abilities.

So, you see, I would like more realism, but not too much, to reach my personal level of simulation. That is the problem, we would all find a different level to be perfection, the developer cannot win. Thankfully we have talented people modding away for us.

BTW-Improvisation and field modification were common in all navies. In the Royal Navy a frequent field-mod on "T" boats was to turn the external tubes, in the casing alongside the tower, through 180 degs, thus making stern tubes into bow tubes. As for changing exploders (pistols), that wasn't a big job, but it couldn't be done with the fish in the tube and I doubt that the boat carried a stock of alternatives.

[Jungman]

In "Thunder Below" for example, they started noticing these dark patches of water in one are they were patrolling. The weather had been miserable and on the rare occasions it wasn't enemy planes were swooping in. So the captain decided to experiment and explore these things, get the crews mind off a morale wrecking patrol, so they could be documented and sent to the survey service. Turns out, whatever they were, it caused the submarine to lose relative boyancy, sink like a rock, and they had to blow ballast to get to the surface again.


Probably to do with water salinity, but no idea it could be with odd different coloured patches.

Indeed that is correct. I saw on the History channel in cave diving, where the salt water and fresh water boundary came in contact; wierd looking because the different density cause light to be refracted (bent) away. Look at a pencil in water and it looks bent, this also happens any time light waves goes into a different density medium (liquids or air).

As for the game, All I care about is exact gameplay mechanics. SH4 I see in the data files the dev are trying to simulate real dud effects, and what year it will occur, plus accurate damage model (exploding under keel is more damage). Wether they succeeded or not, I think maybe they ran out of time. I hope they can get it working as they wanted.

[Sailor Steve]

I would also see part of the original post as mixing apples and oranges, simply because there are different kinds of gamers and different levels of realism. I don't know about the belt buckles, but a lot of people who clammer for more realism also really do try to play that way. I haven't played SH4 yet but my SH3 scores are usually fairly low, mainly because I do stay away from enemy harbors, always dive when a plane is spotted and do my best to pretend that escorts are deadly, even back when they weren't.

A lot of it involves how you see yourself while you're playing.

[Drokkon]

I'm supprised they did away with 115% realism they had in either Aces of the Deep or SH1. I'm not sure maybe both had it. I know you can't be more realistic than 100% but you can make the job harder than it needs to be. In these games auto navigation would cause you 15% realism so would auto tdc. You would choose which you would be doing and still feel like you were at 100% realism cause a crewmember was doing the other job as in RL.

This helped alot of my friends enjoy these games. I tried to get a friend of mine to play SH3 and he didn't like it cause 100% was too hard. I'm sure if he could have turned on and off a few features and still be close to 100% he would have enjoyed it more.

[tater]

That 115% system, allowign you to "spend" 15% on some help is a good idea.

Note that there is another type of realism setting possible for the devs to add. They could make some of the "aided" positions have a "crew quality" adjustment. Your TDC officer works the TDC for you, but the values have a small chance of being misentered by a little bit. Or you call a bearing and another guy plots the line, but it's within some small error bar. If you want it done at 100%, do it yourself!

Kinda like flight sims and bomber gunners as AI. Usually if you man the gun yourself you do FAR better than the AI can do.

tater