Hope my performance will have some even slight influence over the situation of war

[kasperl]

For example, don't want to sink Hood thousands of times any more...
Of course I don't figure the Germans could rely on me, a mere kaleun to win the war for them, but I do wish what I accomplished in a patrol has some impact on the situation. I heard that in IL-2 the damage you inflict on enemy will have some influence on the progress of the campaign, although usually you cannot reverse the tide, but you can speed it up or slow it down. Is there any news this feature will be present in SH5?

[Torplexed]

I know the subject has come up before. If I sink so many battleships and carriers haven't I tipped the balance of the war in Germany's favor and am therefore responsible for changing the course of the overall struggle? The question that always crosses my mind is how realistic is a simulator that is putting that many capital ships in my path (it was the rare kaleun who got even one BB or CV in his sights) and allowing me sink such well-defended targets so easily.

When is comes to sinking merchants you would have to sink a staggering number of them to really have an impact, and then the same question comes up. How am I sinking so many ships so easily? Part of the answer is that in a simulation you get to practice over and over what real life kaleuns died learning and in future careers earn a lopsided score as a result.

I've heard such a feature for influencing the war might be in the game, but I hope not. I enjoy a tactical simulator for resolving tactical situations, not grand strategic ones.

[danlisa]

How far do you take this inflicted influence?

As we are confined to the restrictions of a game and as such our actions/results bear no correlation to the real life war effort I can't see how it's feasible to ensure that a met and sunk primary vessel will not reappear later in your campaign. Naturally we, as leet gamers, would run out of ships. What would you have happen? The game commission new vessels that never actually existed?

In as far as the game allows, I would like the AI to analyse my past actions, be that patrol route vs convoy route, how I faired during attack vs Ai response etc.....and then alter the next patrol routines so that I don't encounter the same shipping in the same area and even go as far to alter the response of the AI to ensure I am not as successful next time around.

[Sailor Steve]

When we talked to Dan in Houston in 2008 he 'hinted' that there was a possibility of influencing not the war itself but the enemy's reaction to your actions. If you sank a lot of ships then they would throw forces into actively looking for you. Harbor raid? All harbors get beefed-up defenses. All of which makes harder to brag about how good you are at something. Or easier, if you really are that good.

And convoys changing routes to avoid you was also mentioned.

I don't know if any of that was actually implemented, but the only way to find out is to buy the game and play it.

[danurve]

"Keeping Secrets"
There was a section in the Battle of the Atlantic(doc) that covered how once the enigma code was broken The Admiralty was able to use Bletchly Park untll Shark. Then the tied turned for a while.

My point is something like that generaly simulated would be nice if it is not possible to simulate on a per player - carrer basis.

[Sailor Steve]

It was a constant ongoing behind-the-scenes war. The British got an Enigma. Later the Germans changed it. Then the Allies got a copy of the new one. And so on.

What got a laugh out of me was Peter Padfield's book about the submarine war. At one point he expresses amazement that the British were so proud that they had broken the German code and were reading all their messages, but it doesn't seem to have ever occured to them that the Germans had done the same and were avidly reading their mail!

[Jimbuna]

I prefer to subscribe to my own theory that the Brits, whilst suspecting the Germans might have cracked their code simply sent messages that were of absolutely no worth to the enemy :smug:

[codmander]

change the outcome of the war? sounds a bit noobish :88) hope the realism setting elimiates that ..:yep:. save the bismark and win the battle of the atlantic...:down:

[Torplexed]

I've never been able to figure how the equation would work. If I sink 10 more Allied merchant ships than the 46 Otto Kretschmer sank, does that mean Germany surrenders one day later or two? More likely the shipyards in the US would pump out a few more Liberty ships instead of some unneeded cruisers to make up the deficit. Or they just transfer a few merchants in from the Pacific shipping pool maybe delaying Japan's defeat instead. How would such a system have any impact on the Eastern Front where Germany pretty much decisively lost the war? Does Stalin win control of Europe instead? Given how complicated history is, it seems such a feature would be ripe for player criticism.

[Nisgeis]

The more effective you are, the sooner convoys are formed and the sooner anti U-Boat equipment is developed and deployed. As your success is hstening the development of the EQ that will destroy you.

I guess that's not the effect the OP was after? But if you did make enough of a nuisance of yourself, then you'd just make it harder for yourself. E.G better escorts and better ASW equipped destroyers and more convoys being re-routed etcetera.

But, Lol, if the campaign system was completely borked, then you'd be able to win the war for the Nazis - and that's not only a-historical, but really, quite deeply perverted. That would be a Nazi sympathiser's wet dream, so really should not be at all possible.

[Subnuts]

I've never been able to figure how the equation would work. If I sink 10 more Allied merchant ships than the 46 Otto Kretschmer sank, does that mean Germany surrenders one day later or two?

You buy Germany enough time...to have an atomic bomb dropped on Berlin.

Whoops.

I'm sort of hoping that the next Pacific subsim has both a historical campaign that plays out as it did IRL, and a dynamic campaign where the player can influence the events of the war. Sinking a 10,000 ton merchant hauling artillery pieces to a distant island outpost before an Allied landing could make for an easier victory there, or sinking a ship filled with aviation gasoline might put a Zero squadron out of action for a few weeks.

[Torplexed]

I'm sort of hoping that the next Pacific subsim has both a historical campaign that plays out as it did IRL, and a dynamic campaign where the player can influence the events of the war. Sinking a 10,000 ton merchant hauling artillery pieces to a distant island outpost before an Allied landing could make for an easier victory there, or sinking a ship filled with aviation gasoline might put a Zero squadron out of action for a few weeks.


I could see such a system being more viable in the Pacific. Japan had a smaller merchant marine compared to the Allies and a much more slender industrial base. Without the depth of resources, every merchant hull lost hurt. Also, her make-or-break battlefield was in the Pacific, unlike the Germans where it became the steppes of Russia and the U-Boats were helpless to render much aid there. Still, I can't think of a realistic formula to say sinking a certain ship with a certain cargo advances victory by a day or a hour more without some sort of system that fights the entire campaign in the background.

[karamazovnew]

I agree, the Uboats never had a chance because of decisions that were taken at higher levels, on both sides.
1. Hitler only expected the navy to play a minor role and based his hopes on a surface defense force
2. Doenitz failed to understand the threat of intercepting radios and the allied ability to decode the Enigma machine after they added an extra disk (Steve, you're wrong, they BROKE the enigma using the world's first computer). He also mistrusted new technology (which, seeing how many resources were lost on high tech tanks and planes, might actually be a good thing).
3. Churchill was probably the most brilliant political mind of all times who understood the threat of uboats even before Hitler understood their potential.
4. Hitler's idiotic decision of going to war against the US.
5. The brilliant minds of British intelligence and the unified actions of Navy and Airforce. The brits have always been true masters of the sea.

In the end, although the Uboats and their commander were an amazingly efficient weapon of war, the Battle of the Atlantic was a completely needless battle that had no effect on the major landings of the war. The allies were able to sustain the constant ship losses and were never taken by surprise, later in the war. The devs have confirmed that our actions will affect the Atlantic War itself, but asking them to change the course of the entire war is plain silly.

[FIREWALL]

One thing that should have a bearing on your surviveability
in SH5 and put into sim is...

The long winded messages from blabbermouth Doenitz and the reports he constantly wanted that gave you away with Huff-Duff.

I want to see that you have to send reports but, it is a random giveaway by increaseing % as war progresses.