Carriers/dynamic campaign

[High Command]

Somethings very wrang...


I have Sunk 4 times the amount of Hiryu Class carriers the Japanese ever buildt????


lol how is this possible.. I have sunk Carriers that dosnt exist

looooooooooooooooool - what is this...??

[High Command]

NOT GOOD :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Quillan]

This is technically not a bug. It's just how the dynamic campaign scripting works. SH3 did the same thing. Basically, the campaign script file will have a spawn point for a ship, convoy, or task force. It has a random chance of appearing every so often. When it does appear, each ship in the group has a chance of appearing and a list of possible types it could be. Because of this, it's quite possible for there to be an infinite number of Yamato class battleships or Hiryu class carriers over the course of the war. The game doesn't keep track of how many are in existance at any given moment, nor does it subtract the number sunk from the historical total.

[High Command]

Well so much for being a simulation.

Here i sit with a huge list and photos of Japanese ships, and write them off one by one, and thay arnt evan sunk, after i sink them!!!

[mookiemookie]

Thems the haps, bub. It happened in SH3 as well and Quillian nailed it in his explanation.

Not such a big deal, really. :roll:

[elanaiba]

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life". And, its supposed to stand in for other early war classes that were not modelled.

[JFL1]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the concept of "dynamic campaign" take into account the fact that a carrier or any other capital ship is indeed sunk?

If I have no direct impact on the conflict around me, how can I call this a dynamic campaign? I understand that we cannot alter history. So we should not call this a "dynamic campaign" but more a "somewhat reanacted campaign".

Would have been good to have an option whereby you could choose to stick to history or to have a real impact on it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think they model sanitary tank blowing either. False marketing at its finest, SH4 is really a game you should be putting quarters in. Blast you Ubisoft Romania!

PD

[High Command]

Its sad.

I see here, i have sunk TWISE the amount of total Carriers Japan had intill March 1941.

Thay just semes to have some form for UNLIMITED Storage of Carriers.



Not to mantion, that a singel sub isnt supose to be able to faind ALL the Japanese Carriers...
Way to many and way to easy to faind them..



:cry: :cry: :cry:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Dude, every Subsim that's ever been made before has been like this. And I still enjoy playing them. And I still don't feel like I need to put multiple sad smiley faces in my posts. If you really don't want to sink more carriers or whatever than actually existed....Well, don't. After you scratch actual number of a given class off the IJN fleet roster, just don't sink any more of that given class if you happen to encounter them.

PD

[Seadogs]

I don't think they model sanitary tank blowing either. False marketing at its finest, SH4 is really a game you should be putting quarters in. Blast you Ubisoft Romania!

PD

That really bugs me too. SWIMMER IN THE WATER! PUMP THE CHT! :arrgh!:

[toby66]

Cool down. It's obvious that the campaign has to have some kind of scripting. It would be nice if a function deleted a sunken ship from the campaign layer. But it doesn't. That's not a bug nor a big mistake. Perhaps a moddder can give us this feature sooner or later. If not, SHIV is still a lot of fun IF you want it to be.

The world isn't perfekt, this game isn't. Chill.

[Seeadler]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the concept of "dynamic campaign" take into account the fact that a carrier or any other capital ship is indeed sunk?
Yes, f.e. Falcon 3.0 introduced a real dynamic campaign where the success of each individual employment affected the situation for the following employment.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is a feature;)

[ReallyDedPoet]

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life".

This isn't real life. Play more and you will come to enjoy the Dynamic Campaign for what it is:yep:

[oche]

Now i know that there are limitations to the game engine and i don't to whine about the dynamic campaign found in SH3 and SH4 because at this moment it is perfect for me as it is (I hate linear campaigns just like the one found in SH2 nevertheless thankfully the modding community took care of that), and I know how dissapointing it is to see those carriers appearing again and again after being sunk or even other Battleships, i wonder if someone out there is taking into account the thousands of G4M bettys and other planes roaming the skies of the pacific in SH4?, so this basically calls attention proving that the dynamic campaign is no different than the one found in the original Silent Hunter a decade ago and not much superior to the one found in Silent Service II which is even older. I don't know if it's too much to ask to see in the near future a WW2 dynamic campaign either made by the dev team or modding community implying that if you sink or destroy something it wouldn't appear again in your patrols or missions, but i guess we have to conform with what we have so far.

[joea]

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life".

This isn't real life. Play more and you will come to enjoy the Dynamic Campaign for what it is:yep:

You don't know who you're posting too? Look at the location. :know:

[mookiemookie]

But, I'd like to point out, that the Hiryu won't appear after it was sunk "in real life".

This isn't real life. Play more and you will come to enjoy the Dynamic Campaign for what it is:yep:

You don't know who you're posting too? Look at the location. :know:

:oops: :rotfl: "Play more" he says!

[JFL1]

This "dynamic" concept is interesting me. Please, do not think that I try to bash the game. I leave that to others... Besides, I would not title this thread "Huge Bug". It is misleading...

I played Falcon 3.0 back in its time and, although not perfect, it was truly dynamic. A successful raid on an airbase, for instance, prevented foes from starting from there for a few weeks... Destroying munitions and fuel dump had visible impacts on the evolution of the campaign. Loosing planes or not achieving your mission had its toll too...

Anyway, I am wondering which part of the SH4 campaign can be assessed as truly dynamic. It seems that the tonnage I sink (merchant or war) has no impact whatsoever on the war. Japan will still invade Borneo on the set date, will still loose at Iwo Jima as expected, etc. That's a given. So, what is dynamic?

The mission objectives I receive seems more randomized than dynamic, since I can receive the same one twice in a row, sometimes three times out of six (incredible the number of spys I infiltrated and pictures of Japan I took!;)), so did SH3. Planes seem to follow scripted routes, ships too, just like SH3. Harbours are available and lost according to the scripted "historicaly accurate" dates, or so it seems ( I am no expert), as in SH3.

So, I am asking anyone in the know: what makes this campaign "dynamic"? It seems to be a big plus in the reviews I read and, of course, one of the focal point of the marketing campaign. I just cannot see distinctly in what the mechanics of this campaign are radically different from the ones in SH3, since they are both based on a historical conflict and leave almost no place for digression.

Thank you in advance for your answers (and, please, no "the game sucks", "Ubi lied", "SH4 is much better than SH3", "Ubi rocks", etc. - does not help)...

[tater]

There is certainly a point to be made that "dynamic" in reference to a campaign implies that the course of the war will change depending on player actions, at least in his area of operations. Random convoys, etc is NOT a dynamic campaign, it would be better described as "campaigns with randomized encounters!" So you are right, JFL1, this game has no dynamic campaign that I can see.

It would be very cool if there could be a masted ship list for the campaign generator with each class of ships given a number next to it, and the random encounters are each drawn from that list. Note that to the player it doesn't matter if the whole game world (pacific theater) has too many of any particular type at sea at that moment since the player will only see a small number of contacts where he happens to be. What is important is that the likelyhood of seeing X, Y, or Z declines if they are sunk.

From a modding standpoint, I have no idea how the scripting layers work. I have been looking at the mission editor though, and it shows promise. Seems to me that the random "task forces" could be seriously reduced and instead replaced with accurate groups of ships sailing on specific dates (since much of the RL data for IJN forces is available online at http://combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm as TROMs).

That would at least ake the likelyhood of all of them getting sunk lower. Having the CVs steam at a decent rate of speed using real IJN doctrine (WIDE spacing of CVs) would make attacking more than one pretty unlikely. I also think the Hiryu Class in game is far too easy to sink. 2 torpedos sinks her every time for me.

[sea enemy]

I also think the Hiryu Class in game is far too easy to sink. 2 torpedos sinks her every time for me.

Technically, Japanese carriers should be a bit on the easy sink side..Japanese damage control was about universally bad during the war, and the mobile fleet ships were avgas timebombs, generally.

The big sinking gripe I have is with Yamato class...We have plenty, plenty of historical info on this one ....A ship that took 19(mus) and 17(yam) torpedoes (though aerial) shouldn't sink with 2-4 hits, as it does in SH4

[Biggles]

The campaign is dynamic because you can go whereever you please and you don't get scripted orders(or do you? don't have the game yet)
Also, the location of the enemy is (mostly) ramdon.(again, not certain)

example:
You head for Australia, you meet a Task Force with a carrier on the way. This little meeting was not scripted for you, maybe it was supposed to be there at the given time, but the player could have been on the other side of the ocean as far as the game knows. And the game won't spawn in ships just because you're bored and haven't met anything in weeks (this is the case in SHIII,where I would often be without a single contact for 7-14 days....)

OFF TOPIC:
Another game with a good "dynamic" campaign? Combat Flight Simulator 3. I remember looking at the status of an enemy airfield, and it said: "Fighting strength: Bf-109:100%" or something like that. So when I went to the area to bomb a factory I also decided to have a go on the enemy airfield.
So I destroyed every aircraft on sight, then dropped my bombs on the factory (or vice versa, don't remember) and headed home. Then after an update I checked the enemies airfield status: "Bf-109:9%"
So I didn't destroy them all, but maybe some of them was in the sky somewhere during my attack. And the enemy air resistance was very limited in the area after my attack.....
That's what I call dynamic!:yep:

[Safe-Keeper]

I thought the developers said that when you sunk a ship, it wouldn't reappear? Wasn't that implemented, then?

Or are you talking about ship classes, not ship types? In which case I don't think there's a workaround, as the game probably cannot count how many ships you've sunk and act on it.

Compared to other campaigns, the SH III and 4 campaigns aren't really dynamic at all, in that your patrol doesn't have much of an effect. Each patrol may be dynamic, in that your objectives change when pilots go down near you, for example, and you are free to go whereever you want, but the campaign itself, with some exceptions, really isn't.

I don't know if that can be helped, seeing we're talking a histroical game where things are expected to take place in a certain fashion (people buy them and expect to see a historically correct Battle of Midway, for example). However, I don't really mind either way. I love Falcon 4.0 AF's truly dynamic campaign, where every unit and building interacts with every other unit and building (for example, if you destroy an airfield, the time it takes for it to be repaired is dependant on the enemy AI's organization, supplies, and so forth). Falcon's campaign is truly dynamic, and it's easy to get spoiled by such experiences.

If a dynamic campaign was to be added to SH4, I think it'd have to be through the use of either manual editing of files or an external application akin to SH4 Commander, which edited campaign layers, radio messages, and the like between missions depending on different parameters including your performance. Would be one Hell of a job, though, and I would sincerely pity the person or persons taking it upon themselves to launch such a massive undertaking (yes, I know of the game that lets you control the whole navy and then fight battles using SHIII. That's not really what I'm talking about).

[tommyk]

For casual players? :hmm: If you sink 10 you get a power up (faster torpedos!)? scnr :)

[Onkel Neal]

Well so much for being a simulation.

Well, how many sub skippers were able to sink 4 carriers? You can't slam SH4 for not being a simulation when you are not playing it like a simualtion; you are playing it as a game. Try 100% realism and see if you can sink 4 carriers :)

[Tat2demon]

lol how is this possible.. I have sunk Carriers that dosnt exist


If you want something EXACTLY like WWII, watch a good documentary. SH4 may be fairly historically accurate but remember this is first and formost a game/subsim. Not a step by step account of the war.

[Onkel Neal]

High Command, please don't interpret my response as criticizing you, mate. Playing SH4 as a game is perfectly fine, I'm just pointing out, with the game out a mere 3 weeks, the only way a guy could sink 4 carriers is by playing with the realism settings turned down. :yep: In that light, I contend it isn't accurate to dismiss the simulation competence of SH4. ;)

cheers
Neal

[OddjobXL]

The main problem is that most people toss around the phrase "dynamic campaign" a bit freely. What they mean is an "unscripted campaign" in many cases. True dynamic campaigns are fairly rare and hugely complicated to pull off. I'm a big fan of games like Rowan's Battle of Britain, the best example of a dynamic campaign with a truly wargame-like strategic element, and Falcon 4 which had some very complex modelling of the interaction between air and ground assets to change the complexion of a battle. This stuff can be immersive as hell when done properly.

On the other hand you can have true dynamic campaigns along the lines of Enemy Engaged which are just so simplifed that a player can see the wires pretty easily and start pulling them himself - "Oh, let's stop tanks 'spawning' so we'll blow up the tank factory" stuff. That sort of defeats the purpose of a dynamic campaign in a sim. You shouldn't personally be winning wars but rather feel like you're immersed in a war effort involving hundreds if not thousands of other units. Having cause and effect displayed, if usually a minor effect, gives a player an incremental and cumulative sense of accomplishment.

Sometimes the most immersive campaigns aren't even dynamic at all but "randomized." The most highly praised "dynamic" campaign in recent memory wasn't one of the more complex efforts but that of Red Baron 3D. And it, like the campaigns in SH3 and SH4, was randomized to simulate the feeling of a dynamic campaign but without getting bogged down in the often technical weeds. The best way to keep a player from getting in the mindset of 'beating the war singlehanded' to experiencing a simulation is to keep the resolution of the war out of his hands. Focus on missions and the emergent properties of a good randomization effort.

It's too soon for me to judge how successful SH4 is. I need to get it to stop crashing long enough to really indulge. But from what I've experienced so far it's growing on me even over SH3 GWX. The interaction via mission reporting/assigning at sea and war updates from HQ is wonderful. Just wish they could limit FOX reports to nearby units, task forces and convoys to keep the clutter down.

[Tat2demon]

Neal,

Not to get off topic but what makes it so hard to sink carriers? I ran into a Task Force on I believe my 3rd mission. The only thing I dont have at 100% is manual targeting (Im still a bit scared of that :p), also no mods and no files have been tweaked. I was able to hit periscope depth at close range and sink two carriers, with two torpedoes each. They both went down very quickly.

I know I may have gotten very lucky but I have a hard time believing that just doing the math myself would make it that much harder to sink carriers.

Am I missing something?

Thanks

[E.Hartmann]

Game is broken take it back!!

[Banquet]

I had the battle of Coral Sea happen in one of my patrols yesterday.. and my orders sent me to patrol hundreds of miles away! I was so tempted to say stuff the orders and head for the battle area and try and get some carriers.. but I'm trying to play on 100% realism and I guess that means obeying orders too.. So far playing like this I haven't seen a carrier, much less sunk one!

It is a shame in a way that ships re-spawn, at least until the point they were sunk.. but the rate at which some people are sinking ships, would some then moan if there was nothing left to sink after their 4th patrol?

I don't know how many combat ships are sailing around during the campaign. Maybe there are too many? In the war they were in port longer than they were at sea.. is this modelled in SH4? Maybe the Carrier TF's should have more ASW escorts? I think one answer would be to reduce the chances of seeing a carrier.. reduce the intel from messages.. if you can't find a carrier, you can't sink one and, if you do find one, it will be the highlight of your career rather than 'oh another carrier, suppose I better sink it'

[Tat2demon]

If youre looking for carriers just start chasing down task forces. Be aware though, if youre running on the surface during the day and you get anywhere near them, they scramble lots of aircraft.

I got lucky with mine and they passed right over me while I was in high TC wasting daylight. I was able to surface straight up, fire 4 fish, and submerged to 300 feet straight down again. They never knew what happened.

[Onkel Neal]

Neal,

Not to get off topic but what makes it so hard to sink carriers? I ran into a Task Force on I believe my 3rd mission. The only thing I dont have at 100% is manual targeting (Im still a bit scared of that :p), also no mods and no files have been tweaked. I was able to hit periscope depth at close range and sink two carriers, with two torpedoes each. They both went down very quickly.

I know I may have gotten very lucky but I have a hard time believing that just doing the math myself would make it that much harder to sink carriers.

Am I missing something?

Thanks

Good topic, Tat2, :up:

I suppose it has to do with playing styles as well as realism options. I play with all realism options on, including manual TDC, realistic sensors, and no automatic map updates; not because I fancy myself as a rivetcounter but I like the suspense and challenge of actually getting in attack position and getting a fish in the target. So when I do chase down a task force, about 3 times out of 4, I am not in a good position to attack. I surface and try to "end around" but I have to stay at least 7~10 miles away or the escorts come over and work me over (and cause me to lose the TF).

Even when I manage to stay just out of their detection range, still I frequently lose the task force. I use up to 64X time compression as I try to get ahead of the TF. Without the realtime map updates, the only contact I have are the occasional radio reports and visual/radar/sonar conacts. Sometimes when I drop to 1X to check contact, they are gone. They change course or zig when I zag, I guess. I do not mind the frustration, it's part of the simulation.

When I do get a good approach angle, I have to get in the escort screen. Quite often I leave my scope up too long or I'm churning too fast and I am detected…again, I have to go deep and spend 4 hours evading the escorts. Bye, bye task force :(

Ok, then when the magic moment arrives, I have gotten in front of the TF, managed to dive deep as the lead or side escorts pass over me, get back to periscope depth and take range, bearing, estimate the speed, and AOB of a capital ship; all the while not leaving my scope up for more than 60 seconds (in real life it was more like 10!); make 360 sweeps to be sure I have not been detected and impending doom is headed my way; set up the TDC for a final solution,…. Range to target closes to 1500 or less, good angle, I fire a salvo…

Dud torpedoes, bad TDC solution, misses, a couple of premature explosions…target changes course or zigs just as or after I fire… all these factors account for more misses than hits...

I've sunk one carrier and one battleship so far in 3 weeks of play/review testing. :) And believe me, there was a champagne feeling both times!

It's not how many ships you sink but how much gratification you get out of them. I do not look down my nose at people who play in Easy mode, not at all. Each to their own, and I am very appreciative that SH4 allows people to play at the level they enjoy most. I would caution someone saying the game is too easy or not a simulation when they are playing it in Easy more, though. I would say the game is pretty hardcore simulation, if played that way. Damn fun, too. :yep:

good hunting!
Neal

[Tat2demon]

Ah gotcha. Ive only ever tried to chase down a task force once before. As I said in my previous post they filled the sky with aircraft as soon as they found out. The one time I did kill carriers was total luck and they ran into me while I was sitting still. All I had to do was wait for them to float 800 yards in front of me.

Thanks a lot for the info. Doing it the right way sounds like a ton of work but also a ton of fun. However I really did enjoy being spoon fed two easy carriers. :p Both of them went up in huge fire balls. I dont know if I got lucky and hit their fuel stores or what, but it was fast.

Guess Ill chalk them up as one in a million lucky chances. :D

[JFL1]

It's not how many ships you sink but how much gratification you get out of them.

Neal
That is the key to a great sim, IMHO. I have too many troubles right now to make SH4 running and working as advertized, but I have no doubt that I will eventually enjoy the sim.

This being said, one of the best patrol I had with SH3/GWX resulted in no ship sunk but tons and tons of fun trying to evade 4 DDs for hours in the Channel...
Partly out of luck and mainly thanks to good decisions (pat on the back, here...), I managed to sink two and to send a status report. As I was running desperatly low on oxygen and batteries, with heavy damage, I suddenly hear booms and bangs... Heinkel bombers came to my rescue to sink one DD and badly cripple the other one...

Before SH3, I never played a game which made me jump with joy like on this memorable night!

[partyboy]

Nice description of the joys of playing at high realism, Neal. There's a lot less action but the action you do find is so much sweeter. I've only just started playing with no map updates, and I'm horrible at tracking down contacts, but I'm gonna stick with it and I'm really looking forward to being able to do it a little more consistently. I've gone from using all of my torpedoes before even reaching my patrol grid to, currently, only sinking 2 fishing boats and a merchant after 3 weeks of patrol. :o I'll get there.

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of dynamic content in games, and I would love a fully dynamic campaign in a silent hunter game, but I'm not sure it'd work very well. I mean, there's the practical issue of range. Jets can travel a lot faster than submarines can.. how exactly would a fully dynamic sub campaign work that would make it different to what we already have? The range/speed limitation would mean you'd have an extremely minor effect on any large scale operation.

[John Channing]

DAMN NEAL!

I mean... DAMN!

Now I want to go home and run a few missions.

Stupid stupid job...

JCC

[Bilge_Rat]

its a dynamic campaign as opposed to a scripted one, because you never know from one campaign to the next which ships you will encounter. The object of the campaign is not to recreate WW2, but to simulate being a sub captain where you never when or what situation you will encounter.

Certainly Falcon 4 has a more refined campaign engine (I have spent a lot of time in that virtual cockpit since '99), but it is simulating a war which lasts at most two weeks, whereas sh3 and 4 are simulating wars which last years. Furthermore, even after the close to 15-20 years of programming, there are still problems with the engine (visit any falcon 4 forums to see).

In the context of a submarine simulation, the actual dynamic campaign is fine, plus I'm sure the modders will fine tune it to lower the probability of warships appearing. From what I can see, there are too many japanese ships of all type roaming the pacific. I am sure that was a design decision to give players something to shoot at. In RL life a sub could be on patrol 2-3 months, see only 2-3 ships and sink only one ship, historical, but not much fun.

[Nats]

its a dynamic campaign as opposed to a scripted one, because you never know from one campaign to the next which ships you will encounter. The object of the campaign is not to recreate WW2, but to simulate being a sub captain where you never when or what situation you will encounter.

Certainly Falcon 4 has a more refined campaign engine (I have spent a lot of time in that virtual cockpit since '99), but it is simulating a war which lasts at most two weeks, whereas sh3 and 4 are simulating wars which last years. Furthermore, even after the close to 15-20 years of programming, there are still problems with the engine (visit any falcon 4 forums to see).

No this game doesnt feature a dynamic campaign - just a load of random and scripted encounters. A dynamic campaign alters as the player interacts in the virtual world. In SH4 the players interaction cannot change anything. IE all convoys respawn as do warships. The player cannot destroy something and have it destroyed when they start the next mission. The goings on in the campaign world are not affected in any way by the player. So no its definitely not a dynamic campaign in any sense. The Falcon 4 game is completely different in that the player can blow things up and affect future events because of it. Not only that but it is clever enough to allow the AI units to similarly alter future events over the course of their own missions. You do not see any of that in SH4 or SH3.

[tater]

Dynamic requires things not in the game, IMO. There is a difference between a scripted campaign (mission_1, Mission_2, and so forth), a random campaign (Mission_1, Mission_37, Mission_5, Random_mission, Mission_13, etc, all with randomizedtargets inside the mission), and a dynamic campaign. A dynamic campaign requires that the actions of the units in that particular campaign propagate in time. Ie: If you are the sub at Midway and find the Kido Butai, the results of the engagement YOU get in can change the outcome of the Battle. You get there late, and the SBDs have no DD (that should have been chasing YOU) to follow to the CVs, and 3 CVs are not destroyed in 5 minutes. If the game doesn't allow for that, it just plain is not dynamic.

Not knowing what you will encounter in no way makes it dynamic. That said I don't actually like truely dynamic campaigns because there is no way the devs of such a game can model everything that matters well enough.

What I'd prefer is a semi dynamic campaign where there are finite numbers of units in each class, and sinking them decreases the number in the remaining pool of such units. Sink 2xYamato Class BB, and that's it, none are seen again by you in that campaign. If a future mission requires Yamato or Musashi, the mission treats the asked for unit as "Generic_BB" instead of NBB_Yamato (or whatever it is called in the sea files).

[OddjobXL]

But he does make a solid point in that any given sub isn't going to have a huge effect on the war, except for the very lucky and very rare fellow who takes out an aircraft carrier or a transport with a general onboard. It's the cumulative effect over a period of years that made the submarines an effective force in the Pacific. Is a nuts-and-bolts, dynamic, sim really going to feel that much different in a sub sim? And if different would it actually feel better to most players?

He's also right about Falcon 4. This is a North Korean blitzkreig taking place over a matter of weeks in a relatively confined area where the action is moving all over at a rapid pace. Blowing out a bridge or taking out AA defenses might have a meaningful effect but you're still at the discretion of the AI that develops tasking orders. You're not going to win the war single-handed.

[Nats]

But he does make a solid point in that any given sub isn't going to have a huge effect on the war, except for the very lucky and very rare fellow who takes out an aircraft carrier or a transport with a general onboard. It's the cumulative effect over a period of years that made the submarines an effective force in the Pacific. Is a nuts-and-bolts, dynamic, sim really going to feel that much different in a sub sim? And if different would it actually feel better to most players?

He's also right about Falcon 4. This is a North Korean blitzkreig taking place over a matter of weeks in a relatively confined area where the action is moving all over at a rapid pace. Blowing out a bridge or taking out AA defenses might have a meaningful effect but you're still at the discretion of the AI that develops tasking orders. You're not going to win the war single-handed.

You cant actually havew a dynamic campaign in a game like SH4 because its very nature means that events will wuickly start to unfold differently from history so making the game not a true reflection of WW2 events. F4 it can work because its not a historical war. If it allowed you to blow up ships like the Yamato and rule them out of the campaign that would also change history. Its about as good as you can get in a historical campaign, the only alternative in my view would be campaign with the same historical forces but then events unfolding as they happen. That would be interesting to see what would happen if the Japanese had managed to get all the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour etc. They would of course still have lost eventually.

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.
I believe the Japanese knew it was a battle that would not be easily won if at all. They were leaning on not at all. Cutting raw materials and oil, from what I understand, created the problem. Now if you are already getting cut off my the US and supply is short, winning looks remote at best.

Said it best in TORA TORA TORA...."I'm afraid we have awoken a sleeping giant."

[Bilge_Rat]

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.

I believe the Japanese knew it was a battle that would not be easily won if at all. They were leaning on not at all. Cutting raw materials and oil, from what I understand, created the problem. Now if you are already getting cut off my the US and supply is short, winning looks remote at best.

Said it best in TORO TORO TORO...."I'm afraid we have awoken a sleeping giant."

TORO?

http://www.toro.com/index.html

I think you meant Tora!, Tora!, Tora!

;)

[Banquet]

The Japanese knew they couldn't defeat USA. Their plan was to secure the oil and resources they needed and construct a defensive line (co-prosperity sphere) Yamamoto knew he could only fight on level terms for 6 months to a year after a successful Pearl Harbor, after that it would be in trouble.

The plan was that the US would see the strength of the Japanese defensive ring and come to a diplomatic solution that would allow the Japanese to keep the resources they'd taken. They completely mis-read the attack on PH because they assumed it would diminish America's resolve for war when infact it ensured America would not rest until Japan had surrendered.

The fact that the US carriers were at sea (only just) and their own mistakes and bad luck at Midway ensured that they got 6 months on the attack, rather than the year they thought possible. Although they were still on the offensive for longer on the ground campaign.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.
I believe the Japanese knew it was a battle that would not be easily won if at all. They were leaning on not at all. Cutting raw materials and oil, from what I understand, created the problem. Now if you are already getting cut off my the US and supply is short, winning looks remote at best.

Said it best in TORO TORO TORO...."I'm afraid we have awoken a sleeping giant."
TORO?

http://www.toro.com/index.html

I think you meant Tora, Tora, Tora!

;)

Oh heck TORO is my lawn mower:roll: I go fix now;)

[Powerthighs]

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.

I believe several of Japan's top Admirals knew this, but they were overruled by politicians.

Not that that would ever happen today...

[Schultzy]

Apologies in advance for not having read the whole thread, so I hope i'm not repeating what others have said, but didn't I read that in this campaign they (devs) were going to address the whole sinking more than were built thing.

I swear I read that this time around if we sunk a ship, then there was going to be one less of that class available in future patrols.

I know i'm getting older with each passing day, but i'm hoping I don't have to worry about my RAM failing just yet. :o Someone tell me i'm not just plain wrong on this...

[Bilge_Rat]

With hindsight, its clear that Japan could not win the war, although when you analyse the balance of forces in december 1941, it would have been that clear to the participants. The Soviet Union looked like it was on its last legs which would leave Germany free to turn against UK/USA and no one foresaw the overwhelming economic superiority of the USA.

In Japan, the IJN officers like Yamamoto were more cultured, many spoke english and had traveled and studied in the USA, so they had an idea of the potential of the USA. The IJA officers were more insular, rarely traveled abroad and had preconceived notions of western inferiority, unfortunately they were the ones in political power.

[tater]

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.

[tater]

True, Bilge-rat, but the IJN forced the issue on the "southern resource area" and attackign the US by their circular logic. The IJA wanted to fight in China, not the PTO.

[OddjobXL]

You cant actually havew a dynamic campaign in a game like SH4 because its very nature means that events will wuickly start to unfold differently from history so making the game not a true reflection of WW2 events.

Actually every historical strategy game ever made has an AI that functions similiar to the AI would in a dynamic campaign on a historical model. History does diverge though, you're right, but as long as it happens in plausible ways that's fine. When the "what ifs" start happening as long as a player can see rational cause and effect behind the mechanics then it's still a historical simulation or strategy game.

F4 it can work because its not a historical war. If it allowed you to blow up ships like the Yamato and rule them out of the campaign that would also change history. Its about as good as you can get in a historical campaign, the only alternative in my view would be campaign with the same historical forces but then events unfolding as they happen. That would be interesting to see what would happen if the Japanese had managed to get all the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour etc. They would of course still have lost eventually.

Not sure I followed that precisely.

[Bilge_Rat]

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.


Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

[clayton]

I sure wish they would make the aircraft dynamic!!! :)

[Harry Buttle]

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.


Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

The frequently expressed opinion was that they could run amok for 6 months and hold their own for up to 18 more months, after that things would not go well.

[tater]

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

The reference is in the bit you quoted, Combined Fleet Decoded. It's an excellent book by John Prados. It's almost 800 pages long.

Yamamoto's prewar rhetoric was far far more direct than the "sleeping giant" quote. He said flat out that unless the japanese were prepared to march into washington and present their demands for an American surrender, the war would be a total disaster.

Anyway, the former Director of Operations of the Naval General Staff, Fukudome Shigeru (japanese style, last name first), said in a post-war interview that the Navy felt that the war held a 90% probability of "national death."

[tater]

The problem is their grand strategy (to the pathetic extent they even had one) required a short war. They were utterly unprepared and incapable of waging a long war, and they knew it. The shock of the PH attack was guaranteed to make the US fight to the bitter end, at least it was guaranteed to do so in the 1940s.

[nimitstexan]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the concept of "dynamic campaign" take into account the fact that a carrier or any other capital ship is indeed sunk?
Yes, f.e. Falcon 3.0 introduced a real dynamic campaign where the success of each individual employment affected the situation for the following employment.

The Falcon campaign is the completely wrong model for any WWII, simply for the fact that no single WWII sub (or plane) would be able to affect the outcome of campaigns to the extent possible in the Falcon series. Falcon is great for simulating a short, high intensity modern war, but it has little bearing on how a WWII career should play out.

That said, it would be nice if the game tracked specific ships, though the fact that we are missing several class of IJN CVs and CVLs (Hosho, Akagi, Kaga, Shoho, Junyo, Ryujo, Ryuho, Unryu, and Shinano) means that the Hiryu and Shokaku are going to have to stand in for other ships as well.

However, it is true that the stock campaign, for gameplay purposes, generates a much more target-rich environment than would have been found in rea life. Seeing an enemy carrier was for most sub commanders a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If the campaign files are modded to present a realistic number of task forces (a project that I am sure will be soon undertaken, if it has not been already), the chances of running into inordinate numbers of Hiryus would be greatly reduced, simply because you would not be seeing that many carriers at all.

[-Pv-]

"...Its sad.

I see here, i have sunk TWISE the amount of total Carriers Japan had intill March 1941.

Thay just semes to have some form for UNLIMITED Storage of Carriers.

Not to mantion, that a singel sub isnt supose to be able to faind ALL the Japanese Carriers...
Way to many and way to easy to faind them..."

You want targets, you got targets. Take away sunk ships and you'll be wandering around empty seas for months. Think of the complaints that would produce. the game is designed to reward you for the time and sffort you put into it by giving you unlimited play, and by sticking with it- GIGANTIC SCORES!!

I recall another player posting here ships were too hard to find. He had only seen two or three *so far.* Can't satisfy everyone.

What if everyone sank every ship, then you couldn't play the game anymore?
Since each carrier appearance is slightly different, you get to play a lot of what-if scenarios on the same ship type. It's all good.
As far as being easy to find them, they weren't exactly hidden in the real war. The Japanese hinged their whole success on making them a part of nearly every attacking force. They had a lot of them and the Allies got to sink them all.
The difference now is we have history to tell us where and when the great battles are. In WWII it was all guess work. So if the devs mixed things up even more than they have and rewrote history so there was no predictability, then people would be complaining it's not and historically accurate sim. You can't have 100% (or even close) historical accuracy and have the game playable by more than a few people for a few days.

I really think you are asking the impossible and still have it be a playable game more than a few weeks down the road. Here we are only two weeks into distribution and you have sunk the whole Japanese navy so far. Would you have done so well on 100% realism?

I have been playing the game for the same time period and I have only sunk 4 ships and starting to attack my 1st convoy. At this rate, I'll still be experiencing new things months from now.

Do you realize how huge the battle of Layte Gulf was? Lotsa ships in the WWII Pacific and lotsa ships in the game.

-Pv-

[TheSatyr]

Yamamoto's prewar rhetoric was far far more direct than the "sleeping giant" quote. He said flat out that unless the japanese were prepared to march into washington and present their demands for an American surrender, the war would be a total disaster
Actually,according to Officers that knew Yamamoto it was even more direct than that. He was saying flat out that Japan would lose any extended war with the USA,and that Japan would be the ones signing the surrender document in Washington. (Keep in mind,Washington was where the peace treaty between Japan and Russia was signed in 1905-1906 I believe).

It was taken out of context by US propagandists to make it sound like he meant that Japan would be dictating the peace terms to the USA in the White House.

[tater]

No, he said the japanese would have to march into Washington. The quote:

Yamamoto in a letter to Sasakawa Ryochi, January, 1941:
Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philipines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. We would have to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices?

The japanese broadcast the quote as propaganda with all the qualifiers removed, making it look as if he suggested they would march on Washington.