Retired After 3 Missions In Gato, Feb. 1942?

[ElAurens]

Excuse me?

Return to Pearl after my 3rd mission commanding USS Drum. Sunk 35,000+ tons and delivered troops to the Phillipines. Got a medal for the mission, then it says the Navy is retiring my boat class and me!!!! It was only 3 missions into her career.

I think I'm shelving SH4 untill they get this nonsense fixed. Not worth playing if careers are cut short for no reason at all.

I refuse to be an unpaid member of the development team.

Call me when it's ready to play.

:damn:

[mookiemookie]

Skippers didn't go on 10-15 patrols like their U-boat counterparts. Don't know why they said they were retiring the Gato class( :hmm:), but don't throw a tantrum just because you got retired out after 3 patrols. In the Pacific, that was pretty much par for the course :up:

[ElAurens]

Somehow I doubt that good skippers were retired after 3 patrols.

[mookiemookie]

Somehow I doubt that good skippers were retired after 3 patrols.

Slade Cutter, USS Seahorse: 4 patrols, 72,000 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Gordon Underwood, USS Spadefish: 3 patrols, 75,386 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Henry Bruton, USS Greenling: 4 patrols, 54,564 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Robert Dornin, USS Trigger: 3 patrols, 54,595 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Malcom Garrison, USS Sandlance, 4 patrols, 37,368 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
John Moore, USS Grayback: 3 patrols, 45,757 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Eli Reich, USS Sealion II: 3 patrols, 59,839 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Williard Laughon, USS Rasher: 3 patrols, 38,340 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Enrique Haskins, USS Guitarro: 3 patrols, 25,400 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Bernard Clarey, USS Pintado: 4 patrols, 42,956 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Thomas Dykers, USS Jack: 4 patrols, 42,417 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Lowell Stone, USS Lapon: 4 patrols, 39,100 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Donald Weiss, USS Tinosa: 3 patrols, 39,047 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Charles Kirkpatrick, USS Triton: 3 patrols, 22,749 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Frank Selby, USS Puffer: 4 patrols, 38,159 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
George Grider, USS Flasher: 2 patrols, 43,718 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Thomas Hogan, USS Bonefish: 4 patrols: 34,329 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Louis McGregor, USS Pike & USS Redfish: 4 patrols, 44,637 JANAC confirmed tons sunk

See my point? ;)

[Tigrone]

It was only 3 missions....
:damn:

I disagree with shelving the game. There is a lot fun and value to be had here.

I do agree that the early ends amount effectively to a bug. That is: they really interfere with game play and with the enjoyment of the game. Also, it is not realistic. Competent skippers usually averaged 6 to 8 patrols in a boat. A good skipper, who started early in the war, could easily have twice that many, and some did.

I strongly urge the developers to modify the career code to allow a player to have a total career of perhaps 18 patrols between the first day and the last day of the war. That could be easily split in 2 or 3 tours (boats) of 9 to 6 each. This would really add to the attractiveness of career play.

[malkuth74]

No, the excuse of its what happened in real life is kinda silly. Its a game not real life.

But to OP I'm on my 6th patrol in my gato if that helps.

[Seadogs]

Patrols were short but I agree with the OP here. Alot of people are reporting getting retired after thier first patrol after earning the Gato.

[mookiemookie]

No, the excuse of its what happened in real life is kinda silly. Its a game not real life.

But to OP I'm on my 6th patrol in my gato if that helps.

I thought it was a simulation? </rivetcounter> :rotfl:

[Whammo11224]

I see your point. I think the point from the GAMER'S perspective is they want to play the game until the end of the war, if they choose. That should be an option in the game menu.

This way you don't have to keep starting over with a new crew without any of the technical advancements that come later in the war.

Thanks

[Seadogs]

And to add, the only time you see people here complaining the Gato is the common factor.

[mookiemookie]

I see your point. I think the point from the GAMER'S perspective is they want to play the game until the end of the war, if they choose. That should be an option in the game menu.

This way you don't have to keep starting over with a new crew without any of the technical advancements that come later in the war.

Thanks

Agreed. Even SH3 Commander had the OPTION of "simulating a real career length"....I was just arguing the point that good skippers did get retired or promoted after 3-5 patrols. From a playability standpoint...yeah, that should be an option. But then there's hardcore realism geeks like me...you know. :up:

[Teh_Diplomat]

This is just the realism factor VS. immersion.


The realism causes a problem as it actually removes the Immersive feeling when you're pulled out of a career. Yes, Realistically speaking, during WWII Submarine Captains had an average of 3-4 patrols with sometime being extended to half a dozen or even 10; But this removes the immersive feeling when you're playing the game.

This is The Thin Red Line (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4087/redline2pz.jpg) between the two where they can oft hurt each other if the line is crossed.

Take the following for example: Yes, it's realistic that a captain would not have to produce the entire solution for the the torpedo, but the game lets you do that to increase the immersion and overall interaction with the game.

[mookiemookie]

This is just the realism factor VS. immersion.


The realism causes a problem as it actually removes the Immersive feeling when you're pulled out of a career. Yes, Realistically speaking, during WWII Submarine Captains had an average of 3-4 patrols with sometime being extended to half a dozen or even 10; But this removes the immersive feeling when you're playing the game.

This is The Thin Red Line (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4087/redline2pz.jpg) between the two where they can oft hurt each other if the line is crossed.

Take the following for example: Yes, it's realistic that a captain would not have to produce the entire solution for the the torpedo, but the game lets you do that to increase the immersion and overall interaction with the game.
Honestly, you make a great point. People play the game for different reasons. So with that in mind....I know, I know...I'll stop being such a rivetcounter ;)

Anyways, I got confused as to what the criticism du jour was. Whether it wasn't hardcore simulation enough, or Halo 2 shoot-em-up enough. :p

[Ducimus]

Aren't you supposed to be able to continue your career, but it costs you renown to avoid being landed a desk job?

[Teh_Diplomat]

This is just the realism factor VS. immersion.


The realism causes a problem as it actually removes the Immersive feeling when you're pulled out of a career. Yes, Realistically speaking, during WWII Submarine Captains had an average of 3-4 patrols with sometime being extended to half a dozen or even 10; But this removes the immersive feeling when you're playing the game.

This is The Thin Red Line (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4087/redline2pz.jpg) between the two where they can oft hurt each other if the line is crossed.

Take the following for example: Yes, it's realistic that a captain would not have to produce the entire solution for the the torpedo, but the game lets you do that to increase the immersion and overall interaction with the game.
Honestly, you make a great point. People play the game for different reasons. So with that in mind....I know, I know...I'll stop being such a rivetcounter ;)

Anyways, I got confused as to what the criticism du jour was. Whether it wasn't hardcore simulation enough, or Halo 2 shoot-em-up enough. :p

I don't have a negative stance with bugs, (Ie: the A Button, tubes closing afer you select another one) What I do see though is less immersiveness compared to that of SH3. Bugs will be removed/fixed via patches; So if one were to be dissapointed with those than all you can do is wait it out... until the next patch.

[nattydread]

Just start another random campaign...new boat, new year, new fleet.

[Tigrone]

Where did you find this list of skippers and their patrols Mookiemookie?


Slade Cutter, USS Seahorse: 4 patrols, 72,000 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Gordon Underwood, USS Spadefish: 3 patrols, 75,386 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Henry Bruton, USS Greenling: 4 patrols, 54,564 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
....

[Ducimus]

Here im guessing:
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/sublist.html

[tedhealy]

I agree realistic career length should be an option, but the short career actually serves a higher degree of immersion for me. I know my career will be short and I have to produce and be aggressive just like the real skippers.

There I am cruising around in deep water nearing the end of my patrol. I haven't sunk anything yet. I know Lockwood is going to be breathing down my neck if I don't produce. Suddenly risking going into shallow waters or a port to find and sink some targets to keep my job is looking like a better and better idea. Do I risk it? If the short career pushes me into these tough choices, then I'll love it.

All that being said, I too had a career end after one patrol in a Gato. Something about my boat being mothballed so for lack of results they were going to mothball me too.

[Takao]

I think the 3-4 average is because a lot of skippers were dropped because of 3-4 zero patrols(sighted nothing, sank nothing), others were lost with their submarines, and still others went to new construction(with the war ending before another war patrol could be started). Also, a trend I have seen is that for as many war patrols as the captain made as CO, he did as many patrols as XO. After all, they were not just dropped in as CO, did 3-4 war patrols, and that was the extent of their war service. Then you have the opposite side of the coin. Take, for example, Wreford G. Chapple. He made 11 war patrols: 2 in S-38, 6 in USS Permit, and 3 in USS Bream. There are several COs with 5-6 war patrols completed. I think the biggest problem with the game is that you are not playing the captain, per se, you are playing the submarine. SHIV, IMHO, lacks any immersive feel that you are playing the CO. I am not the CO of the USS Tuna, I am the USS Tuna. At least in SHIII, there was interaction with the crew and you had your own cabin to retire to. That's not in SHIV. I have yet to have a crewman go "Aye, Aye Captain", all I have gotten are "Yes sir". Heck, any enlisted man would say that to an ensign. The game just makes me feel that I am more the boat itself, then I am her captain. Yes, its true captains, usually did not make a lot of patrols. But the submarines did. Ahh, with any luck it will become an option with a later patch, or some one will, come up with a mod that will do the same

[Ducimus]

Think i may have a reason why on the retirement. And it highlighted an oversight in my own mod pack which im about to corrrect.


Basically it involves the avialbity dates in the flotilla.upc file.

Simply put:

[Flotilla 1.UserPlayerUnitType 4]
ID= F1Gato
NameDisplayable= Gato class
AvailabilityInterval= 1942-04-18, NULL
IDLinkUserPlayerUnitType= Gato
UnitTypeCommonality= 10
IDFlotillaLinkTransferTo= NULL

The bold part means. "boat type comes avialable in apr 42, and lasts tell end of war."

Im guessing that if you forget to update this, when the avialalibty date hits, the game basically trips and thinks its time to retire the boat.

If anyone who's been using my mod pack has had this problem, my deepest aplogies for this oversight on my part. I had this nagging feeling to check the intial dates of the gato avialbilty date, but when it worked properly, on testing, i didnt give it a 2nd thought tell now.

[TheSatyr]

One of the major reasons for the short careers was what happened to Morton and a few others...it appears that a few losses happened while skippers were on their 4-6th patrols and the feeling was that they had been at it too long and had developed combat fatigue. According to Sterling in "Wake of the Wahoo" on the patrol before Sterling transfered out to go to stenographers school Morton would often wake up out of a sound sleep thinking either the Wahoo was under attack or thinking that they had made contact with the Japanese. I'm sure it was rather disconcerting to have your Skipper wake up out of a sound sleep and start yelling for the bearings to contacts that weren't there.

To be honest,Morton should have been pulled after his 3rd patrol...letting a man who was obviously worn out do a 5th patrol was almost criminal.

What happened to Morton was one of the main reasons they went to the 3-5 patrols and your out...and those that made more than 3 patrols were watched carefully for signs of combat fatigue. Those that did 5 patrols were a rare breed.

[tedhealy]

Think i may have a reason why on the retirement. And it highlighted an oversight in my own mod pack which im about to corrrect.


Basically it involves the avialbity dates in the flotilla.upc file.

Simply put:

[Flotilla 1.UserPlayerUnitType 4]
ID= F1Gato
NameDisplayable= Gato class
AvailabilityInterval= 1942-04-18, NULL
IDLinkUserPlayerUnitType= Gato
UnitTypeCommonality= 10
IDFlotillaLinkTransferTo= NULL
The bold part means. "boat type comes avialable in apr 42, and lasts tell end of war."

Im guessing that if you forget to update this, when the avialalibty date hits, the game basically trips and thinks its time to retire the boat.

If anyone who's been using my mod pack has had this problem, my deepest aplogies for this oversight on my part. I had this nagging feeling to check the intial dates of the gato avialbilty date, but when it worked properly, on testing, i didnt give it a 2nd thought tell now.
Interesting, but I'm not using your mod (unless it's part of RFB) and I've seen retirement after 1 Gato patrol. Part of stock sh4 too?

Are you saying if you get a gato before april of 42, that the game says hey this boat isn't available, time to retire this guy?

[Ducimus]

Are you saying if you get a gato before april of 42, that the game says hey this boat isn't available, time to retire this guy?

Something like that, but this is only a GUESS.

Basically the flotilal.upc file defines what flotillas get what boats, when they get them, and what patrols those boat types will recieve. Boats themselves have a date they appear, and a date they disappear in a flotilla. When you already have the boat, i think the game gets confused and handles the entry date as if it were the exit date. If that makes any sense.

[nattydread]

I think the 3-4 average is because a lot of skippers were dropped because of 3-4 zero patrols(sighted nothing, sank nothing), others were lost with their submarines, and still others went to new construction(with the war ending before another war patrol could be started). Also, a trend I have seen is that for as many war patrols as the captain made as CO, he did as many patrols as XO. After all, they were not just dropped in as CO, did 3-4 war patrols, and that was the extent of their war service. Then you have the opposite side of the coin. Take, for example, Wreford G. Chapple. He made 11 war patrols: 2 in S-38, 6 in USS Permit, and 3 in USS Bream. There are several COs with 5-6 war patrols completed. I think the biggest problem with the game is that you are not playing the captain, per se, you are playing the submarine. SHIV, IMHO, lacks any immersive feel that you are playing the CO. I am not the CO of the USS Tuna, I am the USS Tuna. At least in SHIII, there was interaction with the crew and you had your own cabin to retire to. That's not in SHIV. I have yet to have a crewman go "Aye, Aye Captain", all I have gotten are "Yes sir". Heck, any enlisted man would say that to an ensign. The game just makes me feel that I am more the boat itself, then I am her captain. Yes, its true captains, usually did not make a lot of patrols. But the submarines did. Ahh, with any luck it will become an option with a later patch, or some one will, come up with a mod that will do the same


I agree there are key interaction dynamics that are missing that woul dallow for us to feel like the Skipper. I wished the Devs would have figured that out. Basically they need a sense that actions were being relayed to appropriate crew memeber and the action was being taken by them at their station...the way player and crew interact with controlling the sub(dive, speed, heading, tunrs, etc.)

My main gripe is with the set up and firing of torps. I'd like to feel like Im relaying AoB, speed, range, etc to a TDC officer. I'd like to feel Im telling the XO to push the fire button or switch to the next torp, etc. Not that Im pushing the button, or flipping teh switches, or inputting the TDC data myself.

I want to hear the crew repeate and acknowledge my orders as i feed them data and tell them to fire the fish, etc.

[mookiemookie]

Where did you find this list of skippers and their patrols Mookiemookie?


Slade Cutter, USS Seahorse: 4 patrols, 72,000 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Gordon Underwood, USS Spadefish: 3 patrols, 75,386 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
Henry Bruton, USS Greenling: 4 patrols, 54,564 JANAC confirmed tons sunk
....


The appendix of Silent Victory. Great book, I might add.

[secur3x]

on my 8th patrol started in fremantle now im out of pearl harbour have had afew transfers and on my 3rd sub now. Returned to pearl after taking damage and only completing 1 objective that mission and i got shelved aswell but luckily i saved went back stayed out abit longer did another 5 objectives after afew ruturns to midway for some refit's and headed back to my objective. Now i returned after doing more objectives and i didnt get retired im now on my 9th patrol. My ace's board also has me on top (cough) with about 396,000 tonnes sunk 6th patrol i took 280,000 tonnes with 9 objectives playing on low realism untill i get the hang of the game. but it seems to me that sinking small amount of shipping and doing only 1 or 2 objectives per mission u get retired really quickly. my opinion anyway.

[Psyon]

nice list!

the "Silversides" did seven or eights patrols during the war. i do believe that the boat had more than one captian though..

and they certainly had part/whole crew transfers as dad did two patrols on the silversides and then was transfered to the Blackfin for one more patrol. before and inbetween he was shuttled around to various coastal watch ships..so it seems there was "lots" of movement in the sub boats

[Beery]

Excuse me?

Return to Pearl after my 3rd mission commanding USS Drum. Sunk 35,000+ tons and delivered troops to the Phillipines. Got a medal for the mission, then it says the Navy is retiring my boat class and me!!!! It was only 3 missions into her career.
:damn:

This is a feature, not a bug. There were quite a few commanders who retired after three patrols. On the other hand, it would be nice if the game gave players the option of continuing. Being forced into retirement might be great for us realism fans, but it's not a good idea to force realism on everyone.

[Beery]

I strongly urge the developers to modify the career code to allow a player to have a total career of perhaps 18 patrols between the first day and the last day of the war. That could be easily split in 2 or 3 tours (boats) of 9 to 6 each. This would really add to the attractiveness of career play.

Please NO!

No real commander ever did that, and the last thing I want the game to do is to force me to play through the entire war (I had my fill of that with SH3). As an option, okay, but let's not modify career code just to suit those of us who want to play the game as a fantasy game.

[Beery]

This is just the realism factor VS. immersion.


The realism causes a problem as it actually removes the Immersive feeling when you're pulled out of a career...

Not for me. For me, if I'm left in a career longer than a real skipper ever was, THAT'S an immersion killer for me.

Options are what we need, not an enforced realism or an enforced fantasy.

[FAdmiral]

OK, I can see a skipper or parts of the crew that had long careers
in the silent service to possibly retire to other jobs but to have a
fleet boat in good condition retire also doesn't seem to be realistic.
The boats were all needed right into 1945 so getting new skippers &
crew to mann them would be the order of the day....

JIM

[DeuceHalo]

Well, I say add the ability to play the entire war as an option for those that want it. For the grognards, they can maintain the realistic option. But I'm with the OP, as I've become quite partial to my boat and her crew.

[Powerthighs]

How about you can do as many patrols as you want, but with each one you have a higher chances of combat fatigue? e.g. starting to see phantom contacts, seeing gremlins in the periscope, seeing your crews eyes pop out, etc.

[joea]

How about you can do as many patrols as you want, but with each one you have a higher chances of combat fatigue? e.g. starting to see phantom contacts, seeing gremlins in the periscope, seeing your crews eyes pop out, etc.

:roll:

[rascal101]

You are right it is possible to refuse your promotion, (desk job) though it seems an odd system.

You go out into the blue, annoy the crap out of the enemy, get an award, offered a promotion, refuse the promotion so you can go out and annoy the enemy again and what do they do, they give you a spanking and you loose renown.

Now theres incentive!

Actually it says alot for the realism thing, cos I'm sure if the sim was really realistic I wouldnt be falling over my self to go out again, certainly as a UBoat captain in SH3, and I read an interesting piece in this forum about Japanese ASW, seems we can look forweard to them getting better at it later in the war

Aren't you supposed to be able to continue your career, but it costs you renown to avoid being landed a desk job?

[CaptJodan]

on my 8th patrol started in fremantle now im out of pearl harbour have had afew transfers and on my 3rd sub now. Returned to pearl after taking damage and only completing 1 objective that mission and i got shelved aswell but luckily i saved went back stayed out abit longer did another 5 objectives after afew ruturns to midway for some refit's and headed back to my objective. Now i returned after doing more objectives and i didnt get retired im now on my 9th patrol. My ace's board also has me on top (cough) with about 396,000 tonnes sunk 6th patrol i took 280,000 tonnes with 9 objectives playing on low realism untill i get the hang of the game. but it seems to me that sinking small amount of shipping and doing only 1 or 2 objectives per mission u get retired really quickly. my opinion anyway.

Had a similar situation. I'm sure that's a bug, not a feature. Was partial to my crew having survived from 41 to mid 43, and was racking up the sinkings. Went home and they retired me. I had saved it, however, and thus decided "Well if you're going to do that, I'll be a pirate. Arrr!!" First, decided to check out the other oceans. Sounds stupid (and it is), but a little trip around the world was just what my crew needed. And I wanted to know if anything was moddeled back in SH3 land. Sadly, no contacts friendly or enemy in Germany or Britain.

Afterward, I started a campaign to refuel and rearm, without docking. Did this for a while (near Guadalcanal is a place teaming with nice fat tankers that just come to you from Rabual) until my boat finally started taking some damage on a couple of occasions. Couldn't repair the hull damage with the "refit" option, so went back to be retired and likely hung by my CO, or more likely, by the crew for having been out so long.

It was not to be. I was given access to another patrol.

So I guess the moral of the story is, the secret to staying on the prowl that the real US commanders never knew was that you need to first drive your boat around the world, then kill a few more tons, and they'll let you stay. Ahh, the things in history we never knew about....

[Grunt]

This whole issue reminds me of the Counter Strike crowd.

Those neophytes can go on and on about "realistic" ballistics and "accurate" weapons. :o

Yet maybe 1 in 10000 of them has actually held an M16A2, let alone fired a shot in anger. :roll:

Points being;
A) If I wanted realism, Id get back in uniform :damn:

B) I fail to see the logic of the dev's to code in hyper-accurate career paths, but pressing the wrong key at the wrong time im-game gives the player/customer/victim a lovely CTD or even BSOD :damn: :damn:

C) Silent Hunter 3 had a more enjoyable/sane career structure...if it aint broke, why did they try to "fix" it?! :damn: :damn: :damn:

[Beery]

[quote=Grunt]Points being;
A) If I wanted realism, Id get back in uniform :damn:

That's not realism. That's REALITY. There's a big difference.

[Ducimus]

This whole issue reminds me of the Counter Strike crowd.

Those neophytes can go on and on about "realistic" ballistics and "accurate" weapons. :o

Yet maybe 1 in 10000 of them has actually held an M16A2, let alone fired a shot in anger. :roll:



In two sentences you have summed up why arguments/debates/threads about whats "realistic", are moot and not worth getting into. ;) Yet there are those who would argue those points it tell their blue in the face.

[castorp345]

In two sentences you have summed up why arguments/debates/threads about whats "realistic", are moot and not worth getting into.
fair enough.
but i'd suggest that there's a difference between perceived "realism" and statistical "realism"...
the former is of course entirely subjective and allows for few (if any) claims to truth (even and perhaps especially when it comes to real-world anecdotal accounts). the latter however is a question of historiography and (as far as gaming goes) effective causal modelling. have you ever played, for instance, "silent war" (or really any other wargame of similar historical fidelity)? while the mechanisms of play are pretty abstracted, the outcomes do bear the mark of "realism" in that they conform to historically probable norms (not necessities, which wouldn't be any fun). paradox's title "victoria" might arguably be another example ...

[Beery]

This whole issue reminds me of the Counter Strike crowd.

Those neophytes can go on and on about "realistic" ballistics and "accurate" weapons. :o

Yet maybe 1 in 10000 of them has actually held an M16A2, let alone fired a shot in anger. :roll:



In two sentences you have summed up why arguments/debates/threads about whats "realistic", are moot and not worth getting into...

No he hasn't. He's made the basic flaw that all realism-haters make - he can't tell realism from reality. He thinks they're both the same.

[Ducimus]

"realism-haters" ? thats a new word.

I still maintain he has a point. Realism is a word for basically saying, "lets make it behave like it did in reality" But the point is, how could ANYONE HERE possibly have any idea about what is realistic ? Were you there? Were you in a diesal boat at sea ? Were you even alive during WW2?

The point is If you werent there to sample the reality, how could you possibly have any idea, authority, or basis to announce what is realistic and what isnt? All you can do, is read a book; and then make a guess based on your interpretation of what you read. Thats all there is, thats all there ever will be.

[joea]

Well Ducimius, you and Beery both have good points. Still there are facts and there is interpretation of the facts. The OP was upset and called retiring after 3 patrols unrealistic and a bug when facts show many successful skippers retired after 3 patrols. What is intepretation is how the devs for example tried to use renown points to "beg" to stay out for more patrols. Even "reality" is always interpreted differently.

[cunnutazzo]

Beery is back!! :o :lol:

[mookiemookie]

No, the excuse of its what happened in real life is kinda silly. Its a game not real life.

This is still my favorite post of this thread. And this is the reasoning behind why I want my Gato to have lasers and nuclear torpedoes.

Realism is why we play simulation games. The "excuse" (:roll:) of it's that way in real life is the AIM of a SIMULATION game. i.e. you're SIMULATING a REAL LIFE situation. At least that's why I play. I think the interpretation of reality is measured by the end results you get out of playing the game. If you set up certain rules and a gameplay system and end up being retired out after a successful 3 or 4 patrols, then you've mirrored real life results and have probably done a good job interpreting the reality of being a Pacific Sub Fleet skipper.

[Seadogs]

I think you've all missed the point. Yes there are short careers but given a certain set of variables you can be gauranteed to retire after your third patrol.

Lets get the bugs knocked out first before realism debates.;)

[Beery]

I think you've all missed the point. Yes there are short careers but given a certain set of variables you can be gauranteed to retire after your third patrol.

Lets get the bugs knocked out first before realism debates.;)

What bug? Guaranteed retirement after three patrols is realistic if you perform poorly - and anyway the OP had not only done three patrols - he'd done three patrols in a Gato. As I understand it he'd done MORE patrols before that - read the OP again and read between the lines. He never says it was his third patrol - only that it was his boat's third patrol. For all we know the guy was on his 8th patrol when he got forced to retire.

I'll bet half of these complaints about early retirement are coming from folks who are going for tonnage rather than completing their mission assignments. It's possible the game puts a premium on patrol objectives and if you miss three in a row you get fired. Let's not go calling for nerfs when we're not even sure if there is a problem. This all could be caused by poor player strategy.

At the very least we need a balanced study of the problem. Running around shreiking "Bug!" is not going to help us get anywhere.

[Seadogs]

I think you've all missed the point. Yes there are short careers but given a certain set of variables you can be gauranteed to retire after your third patrol.

Lets get the bugs knocked out first before realism debates.;)

What bug? Guaranteed retirement after three patrols is realistic if you perform poorly - and anyway the OP had not only done three patrols - he'd done only three patrols in a Gato. As I understand it he'd done MORE patrols before that.

I'm not trying to argue, honest. ;)

All I am saying is that from my personal experience if I start a campaign in 1941 out of pearl or Manilla I get the option to upgrade to a Gato out of pearl after my second patrol. If I take the offer it is a 100% gaurantee that it will be my last patrol. However, if I stick with my current sub I will get more patrols out of it. There is definatly something fishy in there. (sorry for the spelling, wifes asleep, it's beer time)

And to add, I always go for my mission assignment, even if I spend all my fish enroute to it. Though my last six have been to patrol the phillipines :roll:

[Beery]

All I am saying is that from my personal experience if I start a campaign in 1941 out of pearl or Manilla I get the option to upgrade to a Gato out of pearl after my second patrol. If I take the offer it is a 100% gaurantee that it will be my last patrol.

So you're saying that the game will force retirement on you after two patrols? Okay, then that is definitely a bug. Actually, you shouldn't get the choice of a Gato until about April 10th 1942, which is when the first Gato to go on a war patrol (Drum) left its base. I'm actually in the process of making the individual submarines conform to their actual dates in war service for RFB. It's a time consuming task and the Gatos and Balaos are last on the list (because there are so many of the darned things, LOL). But when it's done it should go some way towards reducing this problem (for those who use the mod).

But the OP wasn't saying that he was forced to retire after two or even three patrols. He was annoyed because the game didn't give him enough time in his Gato. We really don't know how many patrols he'd done - he doesn't tell us. He just says he did three in a Gato. But then everyone assumed he meant he did three patrols in total. My point is that he never said that. In fact when I read his post in context it made me suspect that the Gato was not his first boat.