SH5 Interview conclusions

[martes86]

Hi everyone,

seeing as it is a global concern the new direction of SH, I'll voice my concerns in a separate thread, this one. So:

- While I don't use myself all types in SH3 or SH4UBM, it's definitely a big loss not to have at least Types II & IX in the sim. That much detail went to the VII interior (a single class, which I guess will always display the same interior no matter the variant used) that the rest of Types couldn't be modelled? At most, I used VII & IX, and that gave some variety to MP missions... now all subs will be the same in MP. And always being restricted to Type VII boats, always the same sight, I don't know. I know for a fact that many people won't like this.
- I hope SH5's crew management (morale and tireness specifically) doesn't work as in SH3, that is, micromanagement at the level of a Bootsmann's or a Leutnant's on-board organization duties.
- Animations have been mentioned. Seeing crew move down the hatch as a "at the moment, no", but maybe later yes? Seeing how much detail is being put into the interiors just for one Type, it would be improper to have a lame teleporting crew.
- Shortcuts. I love the FPS approach, since the captain couldn't actually teleport to stations at will, he had to walk and sort obstacles. But I think my opinion is a minoritary one, and that shortcuts are a matter of gameplay, and that loss can also represent a significative step back, specially when trying to appeal to newbies.
- The approach to the tutorials seems nice. Starting as a lower officer, I guess that we'll see the Kaleun (AI) in action... what kind of stuff will we be able to do as an XO in the tutorial? Or is that just a weird workaround of sorts, and the XO actually acts as the Kaleun but with lower rank? Anyway, if it's real and not a workaround or illusion, it opens some cool ideas for modding.
- The campaign ending in 1943... well, I've never gotten that far in SH3, though it was fun to start a campaign in the late years, and glance at the technologies, the units, the difficulties... having the last 2 years removed is another important loss of what was considered a whole war simulator, not just a sub-period simulator. Again, another thing that never really affected me, but that represents an important detail for others. It also cuts tournament managers (like the WPL) some useful possibilities regarding online campaign management.
- The wolfpacks, well, it would have been desired a more intense communication (specially with BDU, not just do-it-yourself driven actions), judging from what we're being described, but it seems like at least there will be AI subs that act on their own.
- Graphics capabilities, well, seems to be the most evolved part. Antialias, multiple resolutions... that looks like it's going on the right track. We should see how it manages upon release.
- Having had "sort of" an adversarial mode in SH4, cutting this off SH5 seems like another big step back. Coop-mode has been done to death. Fairly straight gaming mode, it doesn't offer much to the players, other than what the respective mission creator had in mind. To this matter, MP gaming, which I see as a strong contributor for life within gaming communities (like the 24th), a revolution on that aspect would do much to keep us alive. With PT-Boats being officially a rather bad (and unable to support our structures) title, SH5 is what's left to us to try to keep MP gaming alive, and tournament/campaign gaming for that matter. It would be a VERY IMPORTANT step to implement multistation gaming. That'd pretty much revive MP gaming. In fact, it is our opinion in the 24th that, if SH5 doesn't meet up to our expectations, we might have to officially support other thematic simulators, like IL2, or ArmA2, so that the community doesn't die out of tournament boredom. There's like 2 months or less ahead to try and implement such a feature, and as a professional programer, having already set-up ordinary MP modes, I think it wouldn't be too hard to implement such a feature.
- Modding. First of all, a solid (and developer friendly) mission editor should come with SH5, that's a must. Second, right, the files are more open and all that... but with no SDK of sorts, and a whole new way of making stuff, figuring out completely how to properly get new stuff into the sim (namely, ships and interiors - 3D models, after all) could perfectly take from 6 months to +1 year, depending on the presence of available and dedicated programmers who can code out some tools, like S3D. Either you must at least implement the old stuff for having a II and IX controllable subs (no full interiors, just the old ones... sort of "legacy" capabilities), or you must make it damn easy to implement such things ourselves. Or else, I see a short lifespan for this title, despite all the good premises.
- Addons and DLCs, well, there's a lot of skepticism regarding those. People are already angry that such stuff is being released just to patch or add stuff that should have been right at the time of release, and doubt if buying addons is really worth it. As for DLCs, if they're free, I'm fine with it, as long as is useful stuff. Pay-DLCs on the other hand, are not the best commercial model for people that are already skeptic about buying full addon packs.
- Copy protection. Totally useless in this world of world-wide piracy, a waste of time for devs, a waste of money for distributor, a headache source for users, and a lot of fun for crackers (and anyone that wants a cracked exe for their pirated game). Since it's probably being done anyways, I hope it's a friendly system, not the nightmare Starforce was.

All that said, I also find it worth of noting the fact that the Devs have taken the time to do the interview, and also take time to answer some questions down in the field, which should clearly show people the attitude of the team towards the fans, despite the results of their development efforts being negative some times.
I also want to say that this is no rant, just some objective thoughts on the interview. Some constructive feedback to help as much as possible. I still have some hope for this title to be worth of our time (and money), I really want it to be a success, because it has stuff I'd very much like to use and have fun with, and because its success will also be our own success.

Cheers. :rock:

PS.: Neal, little Q... how did you conduct the interview? In person or via chat/mail?
PS2.: I tried to post this once, the site stopped working, so I think I haven't dup-posted, sorry if I have. :oops:

[Onkel Neal]

It was a phone interview.

Copy protection: no, not totally useless. There are lots of casual pirates it slows down. I know some :)

[martes86]

Casual? The ones I'd call "casual" just go to a dedicated website, and download all stuff from there, with just a tiny set of instructions to know what to do with the files and where to place them. So, I don't really think the protection slows them at all. One would need to be extremely unfamiliarized with the stuff to really think it ain't worth the complication. :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

Well, maybe it will require online activation. Anyway, I don't care. They can use whatever CP they want, and I hope it works. People who steal games :nope:

[TDK1044]

Let's step back and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that Silent Hunter III had never been released. What impression would people now have of what we know about the upcoming Silent Hunter V?

What's being offered is a really good video game in the Das Boot mould, with a VII sub, first person crew interraction, a real dynamic campaign and good graphics.

The primary demographic that Ubisoft is most interested in attracting with Silent Hunter V is the casual gamer. To that end, a video game version of Das Boot is right on the money.

Of course there are going to be hard core simmers who don't like the fact that the game ends in 1943 and that it only offers a type VII sub. There will be a few here who don't purchase the game for those reasons.

The gamble that Ubisoft is taking is that they will attract a new audience of players for Silent Hunter V, while also selling the game to most of the simmers who purchased Silent Hunter III and Silent Hunter IV.

Hostility towards the Devs is out of line in my view. They inherit decisions made by the suits and they have to build the game that the publisher orders. Of course they have a lot of input, but they have no say in company strategy.

So, let's see what we get in March. Let's see how modable it is. And let's see how enjoyable it is to play before we trash it.

[Redwine]

Of course there are going to be hard core simmers who don't like the fact that the game ends in 1943 and that it only offers a type VII sub. There will be a few here who don't purchase the game for those reasons. :hmmm:

Seriously i am thinking in that option... :down:

[TDK1044]

:hmmm:

Seriously i am thinking in that option... :down:

I totally respect that, Redwine. I'm prepared to risk my $50 based on what I've seen of SHV, and based on the fact that the Devs have stated that this game will be more modable than any previous version. :)

[Lanzfeld]

I totally respect that, Redwine. I'm prepared to risk my $50 based on what I've seen of SHV, and based on the fact that the Devs have stated that this game will be more modable than any previous version. :)

I hope they dont mean just the skins.

[johan_d]

Hi everyone,

- The wolfpacks, well, it would have been desired a more intense communication (specially with BDU, not just do-it-yourself driven actions), judging from what we're being described, but it seems like at least there will be AI subs that act on their own.



interaction with BDU is a must to be realistic, since going on your own wasnt done then, and seems now rather pointless and boring..
since the game knows where a ship is and is going BDU could give you some orders to attack it or just not.
in stead of an popping up shipmarker, a message would be better.

[martes86]

Hostility towards the Devs is out of line in my view. They inherit decisions made by the suits and they have to build the game that the publisher orders. Of course they have a lot of input, but they have no say in company strategy.

None of that came from me (just in case). Actually, due to my job, I'm much more understanding now regarding these issues than I was 10 years ago.
But, in my opinion, it also helps to voice constructive criticism, or some opinions, always from mutual respect. :DL


interaction with BDU is a must to be realistic, since going on your own wasnt done then, and seems now rather pointless and boring..
since the game knows where a ship is and is going BDU could give you some orders to attack it or just not.
in stead of an popping up shipmarker, a message would be better.

Lots of things are a must, but unfortunately we can't have them all. Not yet, anyways.

[Brag]

Shoked by such info as ending the campaign in 1943, Too many people have not re-read the interview and have jumped to incorrect and angry conclusions.

No new game ever meets 100% of expectations of 100% of its core supporters.

It appears to me that the Devs took into consideration the power of the machines the average subsimmer uses and created a game of quality within the reach of us poor folk.

[conus00]

Let's step back and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that Silent Hunter III had never been released. ....

There lies the problem: SH3 HAVE BEEN released and from certain perspective was more finished then SH5 is right now. Then GWX came and made it complete WW2 experience.
What I am trying to say is that the limitations of SH5 (1936-1943, only Type VII) are huge leap back regardless how well the sub is simulated...

In gaming industry companies tend to ADD as much more content to the sequel as possible to make players (customers) feel like they are ADVANCING the franchise.

The main why some people judge this release so harshly is that they were kept in the dark until we are almost month before the release. Has it been stated since the beginning that upcoming SH5 will be Type VII simulator only, limited to the portion of the war, people would probably not be disappointed.

What makes me annoyed is the fact that SH5 is not really "continuance" of the franchise and (because of its limitations) should be released under different name. Sorry devs, but SH5 title IS misleading. Had you announced that the "line" of Silent Hunter franchise was abandoned and the game was being released as (for example): Type VII: Atlantic War 1939-1943 the overall acceptance of the game might be much more positive.

[urfisch]

we just know about ONE straight limitation so far, and this is the players sub.

and there are also some other, like limited interaction (none, i guess) with other boats, limited interaction with bdu and a limited, player affected campaign, which ends in 1943. BUT these limitations are not stated as unchangeable so far!!! so, lets hope for a good base of modability and we will have the best sim we ever wanted.

:up:

if not, its going to be like a hamburger. nice to eat, but fast eaten up and you´re getting hungry soon after eaten it.

:stare:

we will see.

[Seaman_Hornsby]

So, let's see what we get in March. Let's see how modable it is. And let's see how enjoyable it is to play before we trash it.

So nice to read some sense amid all the griping. :salute:

[Webster]

as i expected, there is a lot i am dissappointed to read and there is also

a lot about sh5 that i am very happy to read about.


give it a few more reads guys and do it with an open mind

and you will see they are giving us a very very moddable game :rock:

is it perect? nope, it is tragic? nope, will i buy it? yes definately


i see sh5 as a ready made fixer-upper that just needs to be fine tuned by the modders to be a very great game. after all, we as modders are able to devote a lot more time to the game then the devs are allowed to so i trust this will be a wonderfull game when modded.


plus dont forget they said near the end that if sh5 did well it was likely we would see an expansion for it to add more subs and content to the end of the war. i dont mind paying for another ($10-$15 hopefully) expansion if the new content is done correctly and ads something more to the game.

[doulos05]

Hi everyone,
- Animations have been mentioned. Seeing crew move down the hatch as a "at the moment, no", but maybe later yes? Seeing how much detail is being put into the interiors just for one Type, it would be improper to have a lame teleporting crew.

It seems improper until the first time you die because the pathfinding for the AI borked out and your crew couldn't find the hatch....

[Iron Budokan]

1943 and on is when the game starts, imo. It's the whole "scrappin' to stay alive" aspect that made SH3 rock.

Yes, it was fun running around from 1939 to 1943 shellacking convoys. But after that, you became the hunted one. That's what makes the Battle of the Atlantic so perfect from a gaming perspective. It starts off easy...and then gets horrific.

Sounds like that's being tossed right out the window. Oh, well.

[kapitan_zur_see]

1943 and on is when the game starts, imo. It's the whole "scrappin' to stay alive" aspect that made SH3 rock.

Yes, it was fun running around from 1939 to 1943 shellacking convoys. But after that, you became the hunted one. That's what makes the Battle of the Atlantic so perfect from a gaming perspective. It starts off easy...and then gets horrific.

Sounds like that's being tossed right out the window. Oh, well.

I kind of second that

[Mikhayl]

Actually May '43 is when the war ended for U-boote, after that is just 2 years crawling and limping. For all intent and purpose, the Battle of the Atlantic ended in May 1943.
Besides, the going gets tough for U-boote much sooner than that, from late 1939 most merchants are armed so the deck gun fest is quickly over, convoys are quite heavily escorted and if you attack alone, even if it's "just 1941", having 5 DDs circling above your head isn't a walk in the park.

The action in "Das Boot" is set in late 1941 and nobody would say they had it easy.

[Iron Budokan]

From a gaming perspective the Battle of the Atlantic resembles an asymptotic curve. Toward the end it gets downright savage. That is a perfect arc for a game, even a simulation.

No matter how difficult it was from 1939-1943 you won't get that huge upswing in difficulty with this iteration. Unless additional content is in the pipeline. And I for one would be more than willing to pay for that. Barring that, I guess we'll have to wait and see what the modders can do. :hmmm:

[JScones]

Let's step back and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that Silent Hunter III had never been released. What impression would people now have of what we know about the upcoming Silent Hunter V?
But, um, it has? So why pretend that it hasn't. :doh::hmmm:

Anyway, I'm a bit uncomfortable reading comments like "1943 was the end of the U-boat war anyway". I can't help but think of all the brave ubootwaffe men who fought and died for their country throughout 1944 and 1945. Somehow, I don't think they'd agree that the U-boat war ended in 1943...unwinnable yes...over, no...

[Hartmann]

I can´t understand some decisions, for example ..how much it would cost for a dev team implement a new class of boat when the interiors are nearly the same ? , it means a very limited scenario and patrol zones, caribbean and pacific could be too difficult (fuel+ressuply+short supply of torpedos)

About the campaign... is ridiculous finish it at the climax of the battle, my first guess is that they are running out of time and money so they the cut the game in half. is the same if you end a strategy wargame or the pacific submarine war in 1942 ( less systems to model , radars, snorkels, weapons...)

The big problem for an extended campaign could be mod the late war upgrades, like snorkel, radar, and homing torpedos. is the same if you want to make a modern era simulator using SH3 engine, it could impossible for modders create radars and other stuff.

For my point of view Sh3 GWX And SH4 RFB or TMO gives the best perspective of the submarine war during 1939-to 1945, silent hunter V have a severe "flooding" an a lot of things must be changed if they want to save the boat. :nope:

[Mikhayl]

That's playing semantics here :) Sure the war didn't end in May '43 for u-boats, but the Battle of the Atlantic was over.

[JScones]

That wasn't a go at you Mikhayl - there's been a number of similar comments across a number of threads. To me, some just seem to dismiss the rest of the u-boat war as if it didn't exist.

The fact is, the Battle of the Atlantic didn't actually end until May 1945. Check any source. It's just that it was more or less decided by Sep 1943. Still, Doenitz didn't give up and fought to the end. Ending it at mid-1943 is like ending a football game at 3 quarter time because one team is leading 40 to 0.

[longam]

Well if it means that they can give us more realistic content and historical war events up until 43 then I have to say bravo dev team.

[The General]

Did a U-boat sink any major targets after May 1943?

[JScones]

Stats from April 1943 to April 1945...

[194304] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 287,137 tons of Allied shipping
[194305] Monthly losses: 41 U-boats for 237,182 tons of Allied shipping
[194306] Monthly losses: 17 U-boats for 76,090 tons of Allied shipping
[194307] Monthly losses: 37 U-boats for 237,777 tons of Allied shipping
[194308] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 92,443 tons of Allied shipping
[194309] Monthly losses: 9 U-boats for 98,852 tons of Allied shipping
[194310] Monthly losses: 26 U-boats for 91,295 tons of Allied shipping
[194311] Monthly losses: 19 U-boats for 30,726 tons of Allied shipping
[194312] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 55,794 tons of Allied shipping
[194401] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 74,816 tons of Allied shipping
[194402] Monthly losses: 20 U-boats for 66,043 tons of Allied shipping
[194403] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 94,721 tons of Allied shipping
[194404] Monthly losses: 21 U-boats for 62,149 tons of Allied shipping
[194405] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 24,423 tons of Allied shipping
[194406] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 57,406 tons of Allied shipping
[194407] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 61,395 tons of Allied shipping
[194408] Monthly losses: 34 U-boats for 91,454 tons of Allied shipping
[194409] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 50,790 tons of Allied shipping
[194410] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 1,659 tons of Allied shipping
[194411] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 25,193 tons of Allied shipping
[194412] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 53,268 tons of Allied shipping
[194501] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 67,410 tons of Allied shipping
[194502] Monthly losses: 22 U-boats for 75,911 tons of Allied shipping
[194503] Monthly losses: 34 U-boat for 65,901 tons of Allied shipping
[194504] Monthly losses: 57 U-boats for 65,532 tons of Allied shipping

Total: 563 U-boats for 2,135,367 tons of Allied shipping

[Mikhayl]

You're right Jaesen, and I just saw a couple of those posts :O:
Historically post May '43 is significant, but in terms of gameplay IMO it's not as interesting as earlier because it's very one-sided and fairly linear until the end. In 1939 you experience the relative domination, then the slow downward spiral, and the huge battles until May 43, it's pretty varied.

Now, given that SH5 puts the emphasis on being a "real" captain and the "Das Boot experience", I think it's not outragous to end in May '43.
If you made it from 1939 through Black May, BdU would have most likely sent you to a desk job, or an actor career in some propaganda u-boot movies :)

[The General]

Did a U-boat sink any major military targets after May 1943?

[Snestorm]

Did a U-boat sink any major military targets after May 1943?

Military targets were not the priority. Merchants were.
ASW ships were certainly sunk after 1943.

[JScones]

Did a U-boat sink any major military targets after May 1943?
I'm struggling to understand your point - it was never U-boat doctrine to focus on sinking warships - they were opportunity targets. The aim was to sink supplies to cripple the war cause in Britain.

However, a quick Google will show that many smaller warships (Destroyers, Frigates and the like) were indeed sunk after May 1943.

[The General]

I'm struggling to understand your point - it was never U-boat doctrine to focus on sinking warships - they were opportunity targets. The aim was to sink supplies to cripple the war cause in Britain.

However, a quick Google will show that many smaller warships (Destroyers, Frigates and the like) were indeed sunk after May 1943.You proceed from the false assumption that I have 'a point' or an agenda. I am literally asking a question. Please forgive my ignorance.

What major military targets were sunk by U-boats before May 1943?

[Subnuts]

You know what Silent Hunter V is reminding me of, in comparison to the two previous titles?

The Oregon Trail series.

Don't laugh. In Oregon Trail II, the player could choose to travel anytime between 1840 and 1860, choose from four different starting and ending locations, and travel just about every westwards trail emigrants used in real life. You could choose one of 25 different professions before hitting the trail, and could choose up to five skills for your character. As a result, the replay trail was ridiculously high. The graphics weren't that great, and the voice acting was pretty corny, but I must have played that thing for 1,000 hours.

Oregon Trail III came out a couple years later. You could only travel one trail, and only in 1848, and there were only about six starting professions. The developers put all of their effort into prettier graphics, mini-games, and FMV actors...and I only played it through twice before shelving it.

I feel like history is repeating itself. :damn:

[edjcox]

Always enjoyed playing the Bimark support mission. This new version may give us the ability once again and this time perhaps to save the ship from sinking..... A small change in history can lead to huge consquences....

I look forward to it... Set the coordinates and the date and be there for the onslought....:yeah:

[Snestorm]

You proceed from the false assumption that I have 'a point' or an agenda. I am literally asking a question. Please forgive my ignorance.

What major military targets were sunk by U-boats before May 1943?

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

[The General]

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?
What does a question about U-boats in WWII have to do with a Subsim about U-boats in WWII, on a website dedicated to Subsims? Wow, what a great question! Did you think of that yourself?

[aura]

there's a big problem here. The devs seem to be relying on the modding community to make SHV a great game.

Don't get me wrong. I love GWX. But if youre developing a game, you should aspire to make it great, not mediocre and then expect the modding community to fix it for you.

The devs just seem to have the wrong mentality here.

SHIII was full of bugs on release. SHIV was full of bugs on release. SHV...?

[Laffertytig]

the fact that only the 1st few years of the war isnt moddeled aint that much of a surprise. in the current gaming climate its the norm to release games 1/2 or 3/4 complete and then release and charge for dlc. do i agree with it? hell no, but if the content is good and the price is right then il buy it for sure.

and if the dlc for sh5 will fund dev time to provide a more rich campaign of the later years then im all for it.

[Webster]

there's a big problem here. The devs seem to be relying on the modding community to make SHV a great game.

Don't get me wrong. I love GWX. But if youre developing a game, you should aspire to make it great, not mediocre and then expect the modding community to fix it for you.

The devs just seem to have the wrong mentality here.

SHIII was full of bugs on release. SHIV was full of bugs on release. SHV...?

i think you are pointing to the wrong persons, the devs are like us, they love and play subsims themselves and want to give us a finished, complete, fully working game but they take orders from the bosses/suits and when you have to work with a limited budget and only "x" amount of time to work on it you just try and do the best you can under those limitations.

[Iron Budokan]

Stats from April 1943 to April 1945...

[194304] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 287,137 tons of Allied shipping
[194305] Monthly losses: 41 U-boats for 237,182 tons of Allied shipping
[194306] Monthly losses: 17 U-boats for 76,090 tons of Allied shipping
[194307] Monthly losses: 37 U-boats for 237,777 tons of Allied shipping
[194308] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 92,443 tons of Allied shipping
[194309] Monthly losses: 9 U-boats for 98,852 tons of Allied shipping
[194310] Monthly losses: 26 U-boats for 91,295 tons of Allied shipping
[194311] Monthly losses: 19 U-boats for 30,726 tons of Allied shipping
[194312] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 55,794 tons of Allied shipping
[194401] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 74,816 tons of Allied shipping
[194402] Monthly losses: 20 U-boats for 66,043 tons of Allied shipping
[194403] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 94,721 tons of Allied shipping
[194404] Monthly losses: 21 U-boats for 62,149 tons of Allied shipping
[194405] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 24,423 tons of Allied shipping
[194406] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 57,406 tons of Allied shipping
[194407] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 61,395 tons of Allied shipping
[194408] Monthly losses: 34 U-boats for 91,454 tons of Allied shipping
[194409] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 50,790 tons of Allied shipping
[194410] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 1,659 tons of Allied shipping
[194411] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 25,193 tons of Allied shipping
[194412] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 53,268 tons of Allied shipping
[194501] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 67,410 tons of Allied shipping
[194502] Monthly losses: 22 U-boats for 75,911 tons of Allied shipping
[194503] Monthly losses: 34 U-boat for 65,901 tons of Allied shipping
[194504] Monthly losses: 57 U-boats for 65,532 tons of Allied shipping

Total: 563 U-boats for 2,135,367 tons of Allied shipping

Wow, I guess the Devs are right. Hardly anything of worth happened at all. :shifty: