Is 100% historical accuracy absolutely essential?

[WFGood]

Let me start out by saying that I do not normally post. Since 2003 I have only posted 80 or so times, and most of them have been here for SH4. I will state up front that I do enjoy this game. I have enjoyed playing it, even in its current state, and I will continue to do so. I do wonder about the tone and nature of many of the posts here though. This is not a personal attack on anyone but more of a general comment.
There are bugs in the program. It is an acknowledged fact, and the development team is working to correct it. Some of them probably should have been found and fixed prior to release, but they were not. Well, it is being taken care of now. Some of the bugs probably could not have been anticipated until the game met all the thousands of differently configured computers which are out there. I am more intruiged by some of the historical posts that keep popping up.
Is is necessary that the game be 100% historically accurate to be enjoyable? Does it matter that for example if Midway Atoll only had a maximum of 32 ships in port during the war and the game has 34? Is it critically important if certain aircraft are carrying inaccurate bomb loads? Does gameplay suffer if there are 20% more Fubukis and less of another? Doesn't the game still play just as well? It seems that there is a lot of complaint about things that are not really important and worse attacks on the development team for shoddy research, not caring, laziness, etc.
There are many choices in life that have to be made, trade-offs, cost-benefit analyses, etc that factor into decisions that are made. I think the game developers did an excellent example of researching the big picture of the submarine war in the Pacific Theater. Is it 100% accurate? No, and I don't think that it would be possible to do it in a reasonable amount of time. There are mountains of historical documents out there that contain contradictory information; so research probably is not the issue. If the decision is between having all classes of submarines in game or faithful recreations of bases that I will see for 5 minutes at the beginning of each patrol, then I vote for the subs every time. Yes, I would love to see Pearl Harbor strewn with wreckage on December 10, 1941, but what features would I be willing to sacrifice to have that? None. Should Hurricanes and Zeroes have large bomb loadouts? No, but if they merged several aircraft into one in order to save time, then I am fine with it. What is important is that there are enemy aircraft in game for which I have to watch. (I mentioned Hurricanes because it was the same circumstance in SH3 when it came out.)
I think things have gotten much better in the last week or so, but these types of posts just keep popping up. I have seen several today. There is nothing wrong with discussing the historical battles which are reenacted here in game, but it does not have to be prefaced with, "This game sux, and the developers were lazy and didn't do any research because they didn't even know that XYZ happened in exactly this way...." Maybe they did, and they felt that it was less important than some other aspect of the game. They made a choice, and even if I do not agree with it, I am not going to hold their feet to the fire for it.
This is a fun simulation, and it is just that. It will never exactly match the conditions in the war. The fear, real-life decisions, and exhaustion will never be there. You know that you will never be killed playing this game, and that makes a huge difference. When you have a crew and boat that needs to come home, you must take that into consideration before attacking. Simulated carrier landings are fun, but they in no way match the adrenaline and feelings of the real thing.
I will close by saying that I am in no way attacking anyone, I am just saying that perhaps people should look at the big picture once in a while. As President Theodore Roosevelt once stated, "It is not the critic who counts...."
(Don't worry, my time at home is almost done, and I will be back out soon; so you won't have to listen to me for a long while.)

[Schunken]

No, its not....

I prefer the simulation aspect more than 100% historical acauracy... I will not bother sink the Yamato 3 times in the war.... I will look more that it will not sink with 1 Torpedo hit.... ;)

Andreas

[Banquet]

I agree with you in many respects. The game would never be released if everything was 100 percent accurate. A lot of the detail would only be glanced at anyway. A lot of submarine patrols were to cover surface forces and invasion forces.. the subs were stationed in a set position and most of the time never saw a ship. I wouldn't want too many patrols like that!

Having said that.. although I wouldn't expect the devs to add every ship type, aircraft type and accurately model every port.. I would jump at the chance to download a mod that did that!

[AVGWarhawk]

Historical accuracy is not as important to me as game play simulation accuracy of submarine and weapons load out. Reason is I'm a small part of the total war and not the determining factor for win or lose. It does not matter to me that X amount of boats were at Mare Island on X date. This has no affect on my simulated game play. As far as planes, yes, some accuracy should be here because I will interact with them and this is part of my game play simulation. Other than that, what has been presented to me in SH4 is great.

[WFGood]

I agree with you in many respects. The game would never be released if everything was 100 percent accurate. A lot of the detail would only be glanced at anyway. A lot of submarine patrols were to cover surface forces and invasion forces.. the subs were stationed in a set position and most of the time never saw a ship. I wouldn't want too many patrols like that!

Having said that.. although I wouldn't expect the devs to add every ship type, aircraft type and accurately model every port.. I would jump at the chance to download a mod that did that!

I think that most people truly do think that way or like the esteemed AVGWarhawk, but if I can use an analogy, it is like sharks to blood. People post about bugs or a few critical flaws, and then it seems to open the main induction valve. Everyone has to point out every little detail that is not perfect.

[akdavis]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

[WFGood]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed that tradeoffs need to be made for the sake of differing historical records, playability, technological limitations, etc. I remember Kpt Lehmann saying that when GWX was being made, they wanted to recreate the historical composition of convoys but couldn't because they were just too huge and the game would choke on that number of ships. An example of where technology holds us back.

I love historical accuracy as much as the next guy and would even consider myself a stickler for it. But if the game misses it, I don't hold it against the developers and say it's their fault. There's just too many other factors in the equation to say that they didn't put X in because they were too lazy or inept or whatever slander you want to throw at them. First and foremost they're making a game and they're on a timeline. Some things will need to be omitted so they can get it done. But luckily there's enough flexibility in the game that the modders can step in and take the time to research the things that the developers had to sacrifice for the sake of getting the game done.

So all in all, I guess I agree. :yep:

[WFGood]

Agreed that tradeoffs need to be made for the sake of differing historical records, playability, technological limitations, etc. I remember Kpt Lehmann saying that when GWX was being made, they wanted to recreate the historical composition of convoys but couldn't because they were just too huge and the game would choke on that number of ships. An example of where technology holds us back.

I love historical accuracy as much as the next guy and would even consider myself a stickler for it. But if the game misses it, I don't hold it against the developers and say it's their fault. There's just too many other factors in the equation to say that they didn't put X in because they were too lazy or inept or whatever slander you want to throw at them. First and foremost they're making a game and they're on a timeline. Some things will need to be omitted so they can get it done. But luckily there's enough flexibility in the game that the modders can step in and take the time to research the things that the developers had to sacrifice for the sake of getting the game done.

So all in all, I guess I agree. :yep:

:up: (I love the signature by the way.)

[Immacolata]

I like historical accuracy when it gives me flavour and challenge. too much of it locks a game, possibly making it not very funny.

I find that SHIV is a tad on the easy side because it ISNT realistic in some aspects, like EZ mode using deckgun and AA gun, and too thick single contact reports, air search radar that gives you 360 radar for 30 km range.

In that case I would like "more" realism. But also I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less. So I scoot about from 1940 to early 1943 in my SH3 campaigns.

[WFGood]

I like historical accuracy when it gives me flavour and challenge. too much of it locks a game, possibly making it not very funny.

I find that SHIV is a tad on the easy side because it ISNT realistic in some aspects, like EZ mode using deckgun and AA gun, and too thick single contact reports, air search radar that gives you 360 radar for 30 km range.

In that case I would like "more" realism. But also I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less. So I scoot about from 1940 to early 1943 in my SH3 campaigns.

I loved those two mods, but I did not fare too well after mid-'44 either, which I guess is fairly representative of the Kreigsmarine experience. I have only made it to a type XXI once, and I did not long with it. It is a fantastic submarine though.

[akdavis]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful.

[WFGood]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful.

Perhaps you have not completely read the post or are unable to understand it. My point is that you cannot recreate the Pacific Theater 100% accurately, and the negative posts about not finding the game 100% accurate are not only "unhelpful," but they also detract from discussion of more pertinent issues that affect the game. You may be as dismissive as you like, but I wonder who is being "unhelpful" here? This post was about people complaining about the developers not recreating installations, aircraft, ships, and their numbers with 100% fidelity, which I agree is impossible to do. Hence the post asking why people spend so much time posting about the game not being so. Nowhere in any of the posts have I advocated for 100% accuracy or fidelity. I have in fact questioned those that have. :roll:

[akdavis]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful.

Perhaps you have not completely read the post or are unable to understand it. My point is that you cannot recreate the Pacific Theater 100% accurately, and the negative posts about not finding the game 100% accurate are not only "unhelpful," but they also detract from discussion of more pertinent issues that affect the game. You may be as dismissive as you like, but I wonder who is being "unhelpful" here? This post was about people complaining about the developers not recreating installations, aircraft, ships, and their numbers with 100% fidelity, which I agree is impossible to do. Hence the post asking why people spend so much time posting about the game not being so. Nowhere in any of the posts have I advocated for 100% accuracy or fidelity. I have in fact questioned those that have. :roll:

You misunderstand me. If you, in fact, believe that 100% historical accuracy is not possible, then the question you posit is disingenious. That is what I am calling unhelpful. You are creating a strawman to attack. No one actually believes that 100% historical accuracy is possible. There are just a good number who lean strongly to the 100% end of the spectrum instead of the 0% end. Those ends are both absolutes that can't practically exist.

[Iron Budokan]

Frankly, I'd be happy if they just fixed the "A" key.:roll:

[WFGood]

Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.

This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.

No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate.

So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful.

Perhaps you have not completely read the post or are unable to understand it. My point is that you cannot recreate the Pacific Theater 100% accurately, and the negative posts about not finding the game 100% accurate are not only "unhelpful," but they also detract from discussion of more pertinent issues that affect the game. You may be as dismissive as you like, but I wonder who is being "unhelpful" here? This post was about people complaining about the developers not recreating installations, aircraft, ships, and their numbers with 100% fidelity, which I agree is impossible to do. Hence the post asking why people spend so much time posting about the game not being so. Nowhere in any of the posts have I advocated for 100% accuracy or fidelity. I have in fact questioned those that have. :roll:

You misunderstand me. If you, in fact, believe that 100% historical accuracy is not possible, then the question you posit is disingenious. That is what I am calling unhelpful. You are creating a strawman to attack. No one actually believes that 100% historical accuracy is possible. There are just a good number who lean strongly to the 100% end of the spectrum instead of the 0% end. Those ends are both absolutes that can't practically exist.

It sounds like we are talking about the same thing from two differnet ends. The question is not disengenious at all. In fact it is not a question at all. It is simply a title which reflects a large number of posts which attack minute historical inaccuracies in areas which do not affect gameplay. You can even think of it as a problem statement for a research project or a hypothesis if you like.
I am all for as much realism as time and budgets allow. In fact, the more realistic the better. What I take exception to is the negative aspersions cast upon the development team because something was not to someone's liking or expectations.
The development team had a deadline to meet, a budget, etc. I may not like it, but I understand that they had to make some choices in order to complete the project on time as well as make it appealing to as many people as possible. I would rather they spent the time making the submarines and shipping as realistic as possible since they occupy the majority of our time. As an example, there are very few people who actually know what Midway Atoll looks/looked like and even fewer who care unfortunately. There is also the question of how to apply that realism. I enjoy manually tracking and attacking targets, but that in itself is not realistic. A submarine's commanding officer did not plot the solution to the target in most cases. (There were a few exceptions in which the XO made the periscope observations, and the CO oversaw the plot.)
The purpose of this post was not (as I stated in the beginning) to attack anyone or to try and halt conversation. What I was taking exception with was the tone of many of the posts. We can have conversations about realism without denigrating the dev team. I just think that people need to keep that in mind. The dev team may very well have been aware that something was historically inaccurate, but may have had to do it that way for reasons unknown to us. They put a lot of hours into this game, and it sounds like it was under less than ideal circumstances. My point was that given those circumstances, they did an excellent job, and it does not drag serve the community or the game well to drag them over the coals over things which are minor in nature.
Semantics aside, we can debate this issue for years, but I think it can be done without calling the dev team lazy, uneducated, uncaring, etc.

[WFGood]

Frankly, I'd be happy if they just fixed the "A" key.:roll:

I'm right there with you!

[Tigrone]

It's self defeating and gets absurd pretty quick. I always look of a nice balance of playability and immersion.

[SteamWake]

Frankly, I'd be happy if they just fixed the "A" key.:roll:

I'm right there with you!

Yea that and those darn belt buckles, oh and the screws that turn backwards and....

Im no grognard by any means but historical accuracy should be a key component to any game of this sort.

But when it comes down to rivet counting... meh.... let me live in my bliss.

[Snowman999]

But when it comes down to rivet counting... meh.... let me live in my bliss.


Fleet boats were welded. Does knowing that make me a rivet-counter?

[minsc_tdp]

To original poster: Good post. I'd thought of posting something similar myself but instead I just created sh4bugs.com. I figured when the community entered a ton of historical accuracy bugs, it wouldn't really matter since they would be demoted in priority below that of the serious stuff.

Crashes are bad. What happens during sub battles should get 90% of the attention, so any problems with damage, weapons, AI, but that does span a lot of the game.

I think one of the greatest harms is when a member of the community overlaps and confuses a historical accuracy bug with a fatal flaw that prevents them from playing or engaging in a battle properly. "I expected so and so ship here during this time because that's historically accurate, and I spent hours looking for it..." it's just a waste. The sailors at the time didn't know they were there unless they got a radio report. If there's a radio report, them maybe something's there and you should maybe check it out. To go hunting for things because they were in the real ocean in the real world 70 years ago is ridiculous.

The devs need to focus on fixing the crashes, and focus on the moment you spot an enemy ship to when it's finally sunk, and fix everything you might do or that might happen to you in between. Everything else is mere candy and unimportant right now.

[davejb]

I've seen quite a lot of bug reports, some common like the 'A' key and mission list, others less so - the CTD's seem to fall into several families. Not seen a lot of complaints about 100% reality to be honest, a few questioning the number of torps different targets take that I doubt will lead anywhere but I'd like to think a dev might see that one day and a light bulb will go over his head ... I suspect (guess, more like) it's just a bit too much leeway on a randomise routine.

The planes and airfields comments seem to me to be missing the point a bit though, because as I understand it the main issue with these areas isn't so much the historical accuracy, it's the unbalancing act it does on the game to be continually attacked by zeroes carrying 500lb bombs in the middle of nowhere - it wrecks the immersion factor for me, and I suspect many others, to be continually swatting at planes that turn up hourly seemingly having flown a direct route from a base 700 miles away as if the Japanese had satellite targetting systems.

Luckily for us there are already many mods to take care of these issues, for which I'm very grateful. I think there's a difference between
(1) Bugs that crash the game
(2) Historical innacuracies that operate to reduce the 'believabilty' of the experience while playing
(3) 'Rivet counting' style problems, eg 'My Gato has an Obs scope that's clearly 3mm too narrow at the lens, don't the devs KNOW that after hull 11 (USS Nitpicker) the Obs lens was crafted by Gnome Enterprises from recycled lightbulbs? Sheesh!

I think devs ought to deal with (1) and (2), I think local psychiatric practitioners are responsible for (3).

[nattydread]

As close as possible to historical acuracy is essential for those of us(and there are many of us here) who want and look to have an accurate representation of the what happened. Now it doesnt have to be forced for all, but when we have realism options we should get an option setting that provides that accruacy.

Now when I think of accuracy, Im thinking of contact frequency, available targets, difficulty, numerical unit conservation...so 1 Yamato, etc., unit performance and tactics, etc.

[mookiemookie]

As close as possible to historical acuracy is essential for those of us(and there are many of us here) who want and look to have an accurate representation of the what happened. Now it doesnt have to be forced for all, but when we have realism options we should get an option setting that provides that accruacy.

Now when I think of accuracy, Im thinking of contact frequency, available targets, difficulty, numerical unit conservation...so 1 Yamato, etc., unit performance and tactics, etc.

My dream was always to have a mod that went back through the actual shipping records and used those historical ships at sea at those historical times....The number of contacts problem would solve itself then ;)

I doubt it will ever happen. That's a HUGE undertaking, and there's no way of knowing which ships were exatcly where at any given day just given the departure and arrival dates. But I can still dream. :D

[nattydread]

I dont need the exact ship for the exact place and time. Just an accurate representation of shipping frequency/quanity. The routes are already in game. They just need to reduce the numbers across the board, and increase the ratio of small, coastal shipping in the form of solo and small convoys.

As it is now, i think the high rate of COMSUBPAC contacts reports in the vicinity of teh patrol area is too high. It may be creating the illusion of more shipping.

As it stands, it seems about 90% of all my sinkings have been contact reports given to me in the area...thats about 20 tons a mission just given to me...and I dont even go after all of them.

[perisher]

It would be possible to start the war with 100% accurate orders of battle, but as the "war" progresses you must, inevitably, lose accuracy. For example, what if, in January '42, you come across the Japanese fleet carriers and sink 2 of them? What happens at Midway now?

As always it's a trade off and we all would have done it a little differently if we could.

[Grothesj2]

Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

[nattydread]

Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

I missed out on that 70yrs ago...plus I could have only been a cook on a US sub.

The experience can be accuratly depicted in a game, it just takes additional research and dev resources.

[Grothesj2]

Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation. After all, a sub crew wont last long without food. The cooks just as important part of the crew as the sonarman. Wouldnt that be "fun" historical realism?

[OakGroove]

Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation.
:p
F4 doesn't simulate piddle pak application, that doesn't make it less of a simulation though. There are very few simulation titles on the market that cater to the "few", the hardcore enthusiasts. Infact i can only think of 3 atm; Dangerous Waters, Steel Beasts and F4.

Although having some simulation aspects, the SH series caters to a much broader audience. Plenty is simplified, or not controllable at all. It's a compromise between reaching as much players as possible with a niche product, and not scaring away an established sea warfare "fan" base. But even for those "who are full of it", that's hardly a major turn down as long as the Devs provide the base and keep the means open for the community to edit game elements. To each his own.

[Beery]

Is 100% historical accuracy absolutely essential?

In my view, in a simulation game, striving for 100% historical accuracy is essential. When my boat shoots a torpedo I want it to have the same chance of sinking a vessel as a real torpedo had. When I command my Gato to go at flank speed I want that speed to be the same as a real-life Gato. So yes, in my view historical accuracy is essential for a game like this. If it's not accurate it's arcade and arcade games are too shallow to interest me. In my view the whole point of playing a game like this is to get insight into history. You can't get that if the game is inaccurate. If I wanted to play a fantasy submarine game I wouldn't be buying a game like Silent Hunter - I'd be looking for titles like "Undersea Megasub 6 - Warp Torpedo Apocalypse".

There's room for all players, but when people buy a simulation game they should expect a high level of historical accuracy. If they expect fantasy arcade they're buying the wrong sort of game.

[Beery]

Those that want 100% historical accuarcy should petition to model the cook, menu planning, food storage and food preperation. After all, a sub crew wont last long without food. The cooks just as important part of the crew as the sonarman. Wouldnt that be "fun" historical realism?

Actually, yes. I'd love to have cooks modelled.

But whenever a simulation is made, it has a certain focus. This sim is focused on the commander and a few mechanics of running a sub and fighting with it. A simulation doesn't have to model everything 100% accurately in order to be historically accurate. It only has to model the things it's focusing on accurately.

A lot of people confuse realism with reality. A realistic simulation doesn't have to be real - it just has to model certain things - the things it's focused on - 100% realistically. Other aspects - the things that the sim's creator felt were peripheral, like for instance a cook and meal preparation - can be fudged or even left out completely. That doesn't make it less of a simulation.

[Beery]

Having historical accuaracy is good up to a point. But eventually the game play and historical accuarcy has to diverge. Those that truely want a submarine experience instead of a game should join thier navy's sub service.

No modern submarine experience can simulate the WW2 sub experience. In fact, no WW2 submarine experience can 'simulate' a WW2 sub experience. On a WW2 sub the crew experienced reality, not realism. A real WW2 sub crew weren't simulating anything - they were doing it for real. There's a big difference between realism and reality - the first is a safe and fun experience, the second often isn't.

[Beery]

I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less.

As I understand it, the major mods for SH3 did not make the game any more difficult than the standard game after 1943. The standard game was extremely hard after that time, and in fact we modders tried to tone down the deadliness of the game (that's certainly the case for RUb, and since both NYGM and GW were based on RUb I'd imagine the same applies to them too). The standard SH3 game gave a survival rate for U-boat commanders of less than 10%, whereas in real life 75% of U-boat commanders survived. That's a big difference and a bit more realism would have helped make the game more fun in that regard - no one likes playing a game that's impossible to win.

In the case of SH3's commander mortality rate more realistic would have been much more fun, and modmakers tried to make it more realistic and more playable in that regard - but when so many things are hard-coded it's difficult. If you're blaming modmakers for making the game too hard you're blaming the very people who tried to make it less hard. And if you think realism is what made the game too hard you're 100% wrong - it was a lack of realism that made it too hard.

More deadly is not necessarily more realistic, and often more realism means more fun and a more playable game. That's the very reason why I'm a fan of realism - because more realism usually means a more playable game.

[nattydread]

I don't exactly enjoy the realism presented in the GW/NYGM mods in SH3 when the calendar turns mid 43 and later. The game just is hard, real hard and I find myself being entertained less.

As I understand it, the major mods for SH3 did not make the game any more difficult than the standard game after 1943. The standard game was extremely hard after that time, and in fact we modders tried to tone down the deadliness of the game (that's certainly the case for RUb, and since both NYGM and GW were based on RUb I'd imagine the same applies to them too). The standard SH3 game gave a survival rate for U-boat commanders of less than 10%, whereas in real life 75% of U-boat commanders survived. That's a big difference and a bit more realism would have helped make the game more fun in that regard - no one likes playing a game that's impossible to win.

In the case of SH3's commander mortality rate more realistic would have been much more fun, and modmakers tried to make it more realistic and more playable in that regard - but when so many things are hard-coded it's difficult. If you're blaming modmakers for making the game too hard you're blaming the very people who tried to make it less hard. And if you think realism is what made the game too hard you're 100% wrong - it was a lack of realism that made it too hard.

More deadly is not necessarily more realistic, and often more realism means more fun and a more playable game. That's the very reason why I'm a fan of realism - because more realism usually means a more playable game.


I could have sworn I heard or read that the survival rate was 10-15%. Maybe they just meant the boats and the skippers retired, but I also thought Axis skippers sailed until dead or utterly exhausted.

[tater]

I don't expect 100%, I don't think anyone does. The mere addition of the player into the world changes history. That said, some basic attention to historical detail is important for a number of reasons. Having 20X the proper number of DDs in the game makes every convoy the best defended convoy (aside from invasion forces) in the whole war. It just feels wrong.

I'm playing Freemantle based '42 campaign right now. I forgot to alter the 42b files, so I just sank Yamato. I keep seeing these huge TFs down near the Celebes and I know they shouldn't be there. It depends on the player's area of historical interest, but if you played SH3 and saw the Normandy invasion force in the channel in the wrong month of the wrong year, you'd instantly feel like someone didn't do their homework.

As for the ports, those comments were from me. I stand by them. I didn't point out some nitty gritty issues with Pearl Harbor---a major, industrialized port---I pointed out that they should DELETE their port object(s) from a few poerts that should have NOTHING there. Not a hard change, I'm not asking for an artist to create the perfect port for Freemantle, all I wanna see there is a Sub tender and a raft of subs. Ditto Midway. Honaria simply didn't exist as a city in WW2, putting a port there makes Guadalcanal look totally wrong to anyone who has read anythign about it (not sure there is much of a port there NOW, frankly). So if I had picked on them for the wrong color roofing tiles, or the cranes were 10m too tall, etc, you'd have a point, but they have a couple standard ports they drop on the map, removing them from places where they don't belong is likely as simple as clicking them and hitting the delete key (like it would be in the mission builder).

tater

[Snowman999]

So if I had picked on them for the wrong color roofing tiles, or the cranes were 10m too tall, etc, you'd have a point, but they have a couple standard ports they drop on the map, removing them from places where they don't belong is likely as simple as clicking them and hitting the delete key (like it would be in the mission builder).


I struggle with this topic as well. I've lived at Pearl Harbor twice, and it just looks wrong. Nice try, but it's wrong for WWII.

And little things, easy to fix, keep bugging me, like the patrol start screen that offers a start outside the harbor, or alongside the tender, when Pearl didn't use tenders. And the orders screen ordering you to report to "the Pearl Harbor."

That said, just as Japanese fleets being too big and misplaced bothers you, I am driven up the wall by a couple of visuals that wouldn't matter a whit to 99% of players and probably 100% of civilians:

1. sailor's sideburns are too long by 300% and in-gam eartwork shows officers with full beards
2. sailors rolling up the cuffs of their bell bottoms like a 50s greaser
3. officers having no rank insignia and no crests on their caps. Somebody called them Greek fisherman and I agree. A total immersion-blower for me.

[joea]

[quote=Beery]

I could have sworn I heard or read that the survival rate was 10-15%. Maybe they just meant the boats and the skippers retired, but I also thought Axis skippers sailed until dead or utterly exhausted.

Nope it would apply to the crew who served but not commanders who retired. :-?

[Beery]

I could have sworn I heard or read that the survival rate was 10-15%. Maybe they just meant the boats and the skippers retired, but I also thought Axis skippers sailed until dead or utterly exhausted.

Crew survival rate was 20%. Commander survival rate was 75%. German commanders were limited to 16 patrols or less, or about two years front line service. Crews served for the duration, which is why their survival rate was much lower.