japs fleet gigantic..?

[Bashou0]

I've got another annoying thing: by some chance and some effort, I developed a tactic by wich I get almost 100 percent accuracy in hitting and sinking destroyers and the likes...up to even fleetcarriers and, when I find them ( THAT is the hard part) even battlecruisers.
Now, let me pull a leg to make the point : I can kill one thousand destroyers, they keep showing up in the game... I can kill all fleetcarriers I can lay hands on, they sink well enough, but I keep getting bombed by their airplanes...???
My topic : if, in the game, you run over, say some famous battleships, could they reappear further in the game, or, does it makes indeed a difference...?

Some not asked advice : don't duck the battleships, fight them !

[PanzerBoxb]

AFAIK the game randomly generates the traffic and does not keep track so you can very well encouter ships (Yamato/Musashi) that you have already sunk.

[raymond6751]

Think of this as a gift. If you sank all the BB's and carriers, it would get boring.
As it is, you get to try each again. Don't worry, they aren't actually going to go and win the war if you don't. I don't think the war outcome is part of the game design.

[Orion2012]

I've sank the Yamato twice in one career, not an easy task to do even once...

[mookiemookie]

The way I understand it, the game does not keep count of how many of each class of battleship/cruiser/destroyer you sink. For example, the way the campaign is set up it's like.... when generating them, each task force calls for [1x battleship, 3x cruiser, 6x destroyer, etc] so it doesn't take into account how many of each one you've sunk previously.

Just a limitation of the dynamic campaign.

[looney]

Be glad they don't, cause the game would be boring soon.. There is a lot more trafic in the game compared to RL.

[Bashou0]

you guys know how to duck the obvious, sinking the Yamato twice...isn't that a little childish..? I mean gamewise...
:oops: :oops: :oops:

[LeeVanSpliff]

you guys know how to duck the obvious, sinking the Yamato twice...isn't that a little childish..? I mean gamewise...
:oops: :oops: :oops:

Frankly it is not something that has ever bothered me. Imo the work it would required is out of proportion with the benefit gained (radio event and messages on the progress of the war would have to be generic too for it to make sense).

[STEED]

Sink them all. :lol:

[banjo]

I think the RSRDC mod fixes those kinds of vagaries.

[tater]

It's a big problem, IMHO.

The two largest failings are:

1. Ships are not kept track of globally. Once sunk, a given ship should be GONE.

2. No zig-zagging. It can be manually added, but it should be AI since making a zillion waypoints results in AI problems. All ships in combat areas ZZed virtually all the time. No zig-zagging = no realism. Huge hole in the engine, IMNSHO.

tater

[Rockin Robbins]

Welcome Bashou! Some things that we don't like are hard coded into the game. Believe me, people have worked on both problems from the realeas date of the game. As already stated when you sink a ship you don't reduce the Japanese inventory because there is no inventory to subtract from. And ships don't ziz-zag because there isn't an automated way to do that aside from the tater method of a zillion waypoints, which chokes the ai system.

So either we leave the game or we concentrate on the aspects we like. You would like RSRD a lot. It comes the closest to giving you a realistic target environment.

[Bashou0]

I got more respons than hoped for, even from an admiral. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement : a little childish. Apart from the moment of the fight, and that's what the seal meant, what for Heavens sake are you doing in those seas..?
Wondering around, sinking zero's and ones, and not a thing changes..?!
As I speak for myself, the game, even from SH3 (esp. GWX), merits MUCH more, its developpers ( and modders) have done a huge task and are still doing it. So,why don't FINISH it..??!! Give it a meaning, a purpose. And if that take's another year, well so be it, we are paying, aren't we..?
And don't tell me the shooting of zero's and one's is just that purpose, it's indeed childish because this could be a absolute TOPgame...

[banjo]

You really need to try the RSRDC mod.

[BettingUrlife]

Well, if you play stock SH3 you might never see a capital warship at all, ever, not even once, not even hear one, not even see the shadow of one for your entire career. I think it's a trade-off really. With computer games they can't make everyone happy unfortunately .... same as real life :down: .

[Rockin Robbins]

SH3 is just as fatally flawed as you contend SH4 is and GWX can't fix it. It's not because GWX isn't talented, they are VERY talented. But try as you wish, you cannot escape that the central organizing device of the German submarine strategy was the wolfpack: a feature utterly non-existent in the game.

Compared to that glittering omission, SH4 is a complete game. Face it. These are simulations which conform to the abilities of the programmers and the machines they must be played on. Either you overlook some faults or choose not to play the game.

What's the saying? If you demand perfection in your friends you are destined to have no friends? Hmmmmmmm?:yep:

[Bashou0]

That admiral is some guy ! Granted, he has a point when it comes to choose not to play or to live with the faults, I give him that, and it's a strong point.
Also he did put immediately the finger on a very sore spot : SH3, no wolfpack, AND I DIDN'T COMPLAIN...!
Sorry Sir, that's why I complain this time !
Some of you guys keep pushing me into RSRD, wich I didn't play till now, afraid of ruin my obvious smooth going game since I, contrary to posts I read on this forum,encounter during each patrol a multiplicity on vessels in such way I have to refit my boat two to three times BEFORE even reaching my destination. The same for airplanes, but they are a pain in the ass.
To all you guys, it's some comfort to notice that some of you at least partly agree.
Arigato gozaimasu,
soyanara.

[LeeVanSpliff]

So,why don't FINISH it..??!! Give it a meaning, a purpose. And if that take's another year, well so be it, we are paying, aren't we..?
[...] it's indeed childish because this could be a absolute TOPgame...
I agree that SH4 could be better if more development time had been spend on it. I think that goes for every computer game I have ever played (with the possible exception of Ultima Underworld 2 which was simply perfect).

Game developers are here to make money though (which I definitely don't blame them for). They are not in it for purpose or meaning or for making absolute TOPgames. They're here to make money.

At some point sinking more money into a game that has probably sold the majority of the copies it will sell just isn't gonna pay any more.

I absolutely agree with you that the game could be better. I don't see the point of debating it though: "<blank> would be better with unlimited time, resources and funding" pretty much applies no matter what you throw in as <blank>. An equally valid statement could be that the game would have been less good if it had only had half the budget.

My point is that you are up against reality here. So am I it appears as I have just sprayed a piping hot cup of coffee all over the place! Fortunately most of it missed my keyboard.

Just my 0.02

[ijozic]

I agree that SH4 could be better if more development time had been spend on it. I think that goes for every computer game I have ever played (with the possible exception of Ultima Underworld 2 which was simply perfect).

I would rate the first System Shock as one of the greater games of that time, but since they're both made by the same team, it's only a matter of preference :)

I think the graphics (3d-engine, models, textures, etc.) take most of the development time these days due to ever increasing industry standards (we need a reason for those new graphic cards). Older games were much simpler and thus had more development time for polishing.

Game developers are here to make money though (which I definitely don't blame them for). They are not in it for purpose or meaning or for making absolute TOPgames. They're here to make money.

I think you've mistaken the game developers with game publishing companies. Most lead developers probably want to make the best possible game but they are under constant pressure, time-limits and restraints from the producers (not surprising, considering how much the games cost these days).

[LeeVanSpliff]

I would rate the first System Shock as one of the greater games of that time, but since they're both made by the same team, it's only a matter of preference :)

I often hear that when I'm on about older games. Unfortunately I never played it and I guess it would be a tad late now :)

I think you've mistaken the game developers with game publishing companies. Most lead developers probably want to make the best possible game but they are under constant pressure, time-limits and restraints from the producers (not surprising, considering how much the games cost these days).

Yes you are right - I do believe that there are many individuals who would like to make the best possible game. I still like to think the developing companies try to make money though, even though this may be coupled with some creative ambition.

No matter whether we consider the developers or the developer/publisher constellation it still does not rock the key argument in my post imo - that game development does not have unlimited time, money and resources.