sh5 pdf campaign overview here [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

AngusJS

02-02-10, 02:50 PM

I can see how this could work. Say if 500,000 tons of shipping headed to Malta is sunk, the island will fall. If the game takes what you sink, and if it could abstract the rest of the U-boat force in the Med and give it a random amount of tonnage sunk per month, and put it towards that goal, then this could work.

Of course, I have no idea if that's how it works or not. And as it portrayed now, it gives the impression that the entire Med campaign hinges on your boat alone.

We shall see I guess.

JU_88

02-02-10, 02:58 PM

If I read and understand the last couple of paragraphs right I can alter the war. :roll: :nope:

Oh come on 'Can' dosen't mean you have to 'or will'
The campaign, despite the missing years sounds way better than SH3.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 03:01 PM

If I read and understand the last couple of paragraphs right I can alter the war. :roll: :nope:

If thats true, i have problems with that on a multiple levels. I'll bite my lip and stop there.

d@rk51d3

02-02-10, 03:11 PM

The kind of campaign I've been waiting for, for a long time. :up:

Sailor Steve

02-02-10, 03:15 PM

If thats true, i have problems with that on a multiple levels. I'll bite my lip and stop there.
Hey, man, did you know your lip is bleeding? You been biting it a lot or sumpin'?

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 03:32 PM

Sorry, I find the 'change the war with a uboat' a bit weird. Are we re-writing history via a game?

The Enigma

02-02-10, 03:36 PM

Wasn't this 'issue' also mentioned in "SH5 Dev Team Interview (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../ssr/sh5/preview_sh5_jan2010.php)" ?

Sailor Steve

02-02-10, 03:36 PM

As I've said, I played LucasArts' Their Finest Hour: The Battle Of Britain and you could play a campaign on either side. I helped Germany invade England twice, then went back to the single missions.

Influence parts of the war? Sure. Change the outcome? Not a chance. But everything I've been told indicates that we'll get more of the former and hopefully none of the latter.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 03:38 PM

Hartmann

02-02-10, 03:53 PM

The war was lost for some causes, for example change the tactics during the battle of england, no enough U-boats in 1939-40, invading russia and delay the advance to moskow and more.

U-boats only are unable to won the war

MercurySeven

02-02-10, 04:09 PM

Well, you would have to be one hell of an uboot ace to win the war until '43.There is a limitation to how many ships per refill a sub can sink ... :hmmm:

I assume the outcome in certain battles can be influenced (like Malta) which might give you certain advantages, but the overall outcome is kind of hard to turn with the US and the SU pushing through.

Turning the war with subs would mean knocking out England (preferably before the US enters the war) and doing so would mean first cutting her of from her supplies. That only works when the numbers of uboots is right and the commanders are real aces. Since you are the only one that "changes history" here and certain aspects like sonar, radar and the enigma problem remain, the possible impact on the overall supplies is rather limited. *think*

FIREWALL

02-02-10, 04:10 PM

If thats true, i have problems with that on a multiple levels. I'll bite my lip and stop there.

Sorry, I find the 'change the war with a uboat' a bit weird. Are we re-writing history via a game?

Influence the war I'm good with. Change the outcome...not a chance as stated. :up:

They need to clear this up. Tho I doubt their makeing a Fantasy subsim.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 04:12 PM

Hey, man, did you know your lip is bleeding? You been biting it a lot or sumpin'?

Don't encourage me. I'm trying to be good. All i'm going to say, is if you can change the outcome of the war, this game will be a history revisionists wet dream come true.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 04:29 PM

They need to clear this up. Tho I doubt their makeing a Fantasy subsim.

OK.. fine.. I'll bite.

Too many people in this community, are so enthralled with the uboat romance, they are completely out of touch with historical perspective.

I'll give 3 quick examples.

1.) A patrol report someone wrote about U-181 during a wolves of war campaign some years ago. This user wrote in such a context that they were PROUDLY and DEFIANTLY flying the swaztika to the end.

2.) Another user putting the smiling happy german captain with the nazi flag superimposed in the background.

3.) another user posting a pic like this:
http://yoshi.backupot.com/Silent%20Hunter/Flag%20and%20Statue.png

So enthralled with the uboat romance, that the meaning behind that symbol has been completely erased. Nevermind the regieme, nor the what transpired in the war, nor the allied men, killed in the atlantic. No, instead just look at these poor uboat men in their epic struggle, these are the good guys!

The way people lament about them, you'd swear people wish they had won! And if you can change the outcome of the war in this dynamic campaign, now they finally have that chance. This is also the type of schitt neo nazi's, and any others who idolize the 3rd reich would jump at.

Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with a Uboat sim, in and of itself, but too many people here take it entirely too far. I played SH3 for a few years, and i always tried to be mindful of the regieme behind it all. And here's a confesson. I, like other uboat fans, had at one point lost perspective. I realized that, when one day, towards the end of a career game, i found myself looking at the swaztika as a flag of a friendly nation. That bothered me alot, and it made me realize just how out of touch with reality this uboat romance is.

SO yea, if you can change the outcome of the war, i have problems with that on many levels.

The Enigma

02-02-10, 04:36 PM

It would have been a good thing if, at the end of a career, a short
resume was displayed what horror the Nazi's have caused.

That would put you back into reality again.

The General

02-02-10, 04:40 PM

Don't encourage me. I'm trying to be good. All i'm going to say, is if you can change the outcome of the war, this game will be a history revisionists wet dream come true.This won't be the first time that has a happened. For just one example; Phillip K. Dick wrote a story about an alternative reality where The Axis powers won WWII. I don't think SH5 is even the first game to do this.

I like the sound of this new campaign. In SH3-4 I never liked the fact that, once you sunk one of the big battleships, you could encounter the same BB again and again. You felt that you were accomplishing nothing after a while.

FIREWALL

02-02-10, 04:43 PM

Simply, I want it historical. Fantasy can be modded in by a users own taste which, has been done on past sub sims.

onelifecrisis

02-02-10, 05:21 PM

If thats true, i have problems with that on a multiple levels. I'll bite my lip and stop there.

Wow. That's just....wow.

I'm speechless if this is true. :cry:

Sorry, I find the 'change the war with a uboat' a bit weird. Are we re-writing history via a game?

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

THE_MASK

02-02-10, 05:38 PM

Hasnt anyone ever modded a campaign before . If they drop the DRM i dont see a problem in modding it .

JU_88

02-02-10, 05:42 PM

Simply, I want it historical. Fantasy can be modded in by a users own taste which, has been done on past sub sims.

Well i my impression is that the devs are talking about relativly minor alterations to the Battle of the Atlantic- not a total re-write of WW2 history.

You got to apprieciate that some events during of the Battle of atlantic were down to chance.
In SH3, you could potentially 'save the Bismark' but game thinks nothing of it. Were you to do that in SH5, maybe the Bismark would be used in another battle?
IMO Its no so far fetched that one U-boat can make a difference in this way, it potentially can if its in the right place at the right time.

WW2 has already played out and history is cast in stone, now how can you play that out in a sandbox game like silent hunter 5? 100% historical accucuracy is not really compatible with 'computer game' format in this way.

Players did unhistorical things in SH3, like raiding Ports, saving the bismark sinking ships that never got sunk in real life etc.
The only difference it that SH5 acknowledges these acts, where SH3 totally ignored them.
Yet SH3 is somehow deemed superior for it?? :doh:

So long as we are not led to feel as though the Battle is being won by the Axis by 1943... I really dont see the problem.

Sgtmonkeynads

02-02-10, 05:48 PM

Simply, I want it historical. Fantasy can be modded in by a users own taste which, has been done on past sub sims.

I basically said the samething over at somewhere else...you know where. Guess what they(one of the mods I believe) told me ?
GO READ A BOOK !
I about went through the friggen roof man, I'm still steamed.

They just don't get it over there.

utops

02-02-10, 05:55 PM

I just want to survive and take credit for sunken tonage , that is all for me when i thinking about,some fiction it is not a problem in eg. if i get lucky to sink main unit of the home fleet , that unit is off.
So that unit is not longer operational and that impact on the campaign.
In future this particural ship do not acomplish mission. Some event because of this is diffirent and change a little shape of the frontline,but whole war? This is just ridiculous, but good material for those epic heroes wannabe rpg fans.

Iron Budokan

02-02-10, 06:10 PM

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

Yes, Uboats had a severe economic impact on the Allies. History has proven this to be true.

NO, they didn't win the war. When a game has you winning the war, or affecting huge economic and materiel outcomes that are historically innaccurate, then it ceases to become a simulation and becomes a childish, cartoonish, arcade.

That's the difference.

JU_88

02-02-10, 06:14 PM

Hypothetical question for the 'historical' purists here...

Senario:
Your are playing SH3 and HMS Nelson passes in front of your scope
What do you do?

1) Attack as did the commander of U-31 (but! if you sink her, that event is 100% fantasy, Nelson was never sunk!.)

2) Ignore her for the sake of historical accuracy. (not what a real Uboat commander would have done under the circumstances)

The point is that history happened one way only and it cannot be undone, in a sandbox game with DYNAMIC campaign on the hand...
Do you see where Im going with this?
A Historically accurate computer game is not actually possible - unless you remove the players free will.
SH5 responds to that 'free will' is that a crime?

Nisgeis

02-02-10, 06:24 PM

This won't be the first time that has a happened. For just one example; Phillip K. Dick wrote a story about an alternative reality where The Axis powers won WWII.

Yes, The Man in the High Castle. In that book though, it was clearly pointed out that they were living in the 'wrong' reality and things should not have turned out that way. It also talked about the extermination of the Jews, so was not a fun thing to try to role play with.

Hypothetical question for the history purists here...

Senario:
Your are playing SH3 and HMS Nelson passes in front of your scope
What do you do?

1) Attack as did the commander of U-31 (but! if you sink her, that event is 100% fantasy, Nelson was never sunk!.)

2) Ignore her for the sake of historical accuracy. (not what a real Uboat commander would have done under the circumstances)

The point is History happened one way and it cannot be undone, in a sandbox game with DYNAMIC campaign on the hand...

Do you see where Im going with this?

Yes I do see, but that's not what people are complaining about. They are not complaining that they can sink ships that historically were never attacked by U-Boat. To make that stick, you'd have to stick rigidly to the original U-boats patrol, never deviating from it, including during attacks.

What some people are concerned about is that people can sail out, sink 2 million tons of shipping in a week with their deck gun in pew pew fashion and then RTB, get a little message saying how they have turned the tide and thinking 'Wow! I could have won the war for the Nazis! How tragic I wasn't born back then.'.

Other people are complaing that as a single instrument, the U-boats whilst being very effective initially, once counter measures were put in place, they ceased to be as potent and effective as they once were. Having a single captain (the player) being responsible for turning the tide of the war is... quite a stretch, unless tonnage figures are going to be pew pew excessive.

JU_88

02-02-10, 06:49 PM

Yes I do see, but that's not what people are complaining about. They are not complaining that they can sink ships that historically were never attacked by U-Boat. To make that stick, you'd have to stick rigidly to the original U-boats patrol, never deviating from it, including during attacks.

I was using it as an example, I was mearly trying to remind people that every SH3/4/5 patrol we undertake is pure fantasy anyway.
It never happened. the best the sim can do is convey a sense of what it was like.

What some people are concerned about is that people can sail out, sink 2 million tons of shipping in a week with their deck gun in pew pew fashion and then RTB, get a little message saying how they have turned the tide and thinking 'Wow! I could have won the war for the Nazis! How tragic I wasn't born back then.'..

And so what if they do think that? Silent Hunter is a game, not an interactive history lesson for retards.
Anyway you could do the same Turkey shoot in the last two SH games on a low realism.

Theoretically it should be harder in SH5 because the game is allegedly able to respond to your actions (e.g by sending a bunch of escorts/planes to punish you for such reckless behavior.)

Other people are complaing that as a single instrument, the U-boats whilst being very effective initially, once counter measures were put in place, they ceased to be as potent and effective as they once were. Having a single captain (the player) being responsible for turning the tide of the war is... quite a stretch, unless tonnage figures are going to be pew pew excessive.

Sure I agree, by 1943, no matter what the player has done, the game should be giving off a STRONG Impression that its the begining of the end for the Uboats..
How do we know that this is not the case? I have not seen anything in that PDF that states "the player is able to secure an Axis victory and you vill be king of ze vorld!!'
Rather it says "will dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too" which is exactly what the U-boats did to some degree!
It doesn't say to what degree, its abit vague and open to interpretation

But of course people will jump to the worst possible conclusion... (again)

Ducimus

02-02-10, 07:14 PM

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

Frederf

02-02-10, 07:23 PM

"Altering the war" is not to be confused with "radically changing the outcome." The devs have stated that they don't want a strict passive documentary and I support this notion. All WWII games I play I want to be plausible and believable interpretations of that scenario. Small scale differences are happy accidents that allow a unique story to be told within the larger known context.

Based on what I've seen the player not only controls 1 U-boot but probably the naval/sub strategy for an entire theater and possibly beyond that.

In actuality a WWII game where, say Market Garden was 100% successful would be pretty cool but only if it was an accurate representation of what would have actually happened. This is of course so difficult as to border on impossible. The world is such a complex place that any credible large-scale deviation from actual history is effectively beyond reach.

JU_88

02-02-10, 07:26 PM

My bottom line on the idea of, "if its possible to alter the course of the war" in SH5 is this:

History should be respected, not rewritten to suit some romance or agenda.

And I dont think anyone could rationally disagree with your last sentence, but I am not up in arms over it simply because...

"dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too"

AND

"dictate the out come of the war." (PERIOD)

...mean two different things.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 07:37 PM

mookiemookie

02-02-10, 07:40 PM

JU_88

02-02-10, 07:54 PM

>>...mean two different things.

No not really. Consider if a player is actually able to save the Bismark; and as a result, It goes on to fight another battle and becomes a key piece to a victory by the axis that never happened. That would be a monumental crock of schitt.

Like SH3, only the player had to 'pretend' it either fought other battles or got sunk anyway.

Dynamic campaign (multiple possiblilties)
History (a fixed chain of events)

I guess you cant have your cake an eat it. -unless they make SH5 into a rail shooter like House of Dead.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 07:58 PM

Why? It sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Sure, and while we're at it, lets make the Type 21 be developed earlier, say in 1940, so it could be commissioned by 41. Force radar development sooner too. Then change the enigma codes on a monthy basis while we're at it. Having done that we could cut Englands lifeline and force them to capitulate by 42 and we'll all sing Deutschland Uber Alles while toasting our knights crosses at Unkle Karl's casino bar celebration party.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 08:00 PM

So you guys think that the U-boats made no difference? That if Germany had not sent any of them to war then everything would have panned out exactly the same anyway? Wow. Why on earth would you even be interested in playing a game that simulates the command of such useless vessels?

No one stated that the uboat did nothing. Altering the outcome of the war, win/lose, is the issue. I'm all for events changing within my uboat world but not the entire world. Sure, a change of shipping lanes because my presence in a particular part of the ocean is welcomed. I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place as a result is ok. Winning the war or alternate reality does not work for me.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 08:01 PM

Well i my impression is that the devs are talking about relativly minor alterations to the Battle of the Atlantic- not a total re-write of WW2 history.

You got to apprieciate that some events during of the Battle of atlantic were down to chance.
In SH3, you could potentially 'save the Bismark' but game thinks nothing of it. Were you to do that in SH5, maybe the Bismark would be used in another battle?
IMO Its no so far fetched that one U-boat can make a difference in this way, it potentially can if its in the right place at the right time.

WW2 has already played out and history is cast in stone, now how can you play that out in a sandbox game like silent hunter 5? 100% historical accucuracy is not really compatible with 'computer game' format in this way.

Players did unhistorical things in SH3, like raiding Ports, saving the bismark sinking ships that never got sunk in real life etc.
The only difference it that SH5 acknowledges these acts, where SH3 totally ignored them.
Yet SH3 is somehow deemed superior for it?? :doh:

So long as we are not led to feel as though the Battle is being won by the Axis by 1943... I really dont see the problem.

I like your thoughts in the matter. :up:

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 08:07 PM

Why? It sounds perfectly plausible to me.

Seems plausible but not historical. I guess we are really down to what is a simulation? Is it always historical? Is it just a submarine simulation and that is it? It is a history simulation? Can it be made both? Campaign layers in SH4 can have battles start and finish on a certain date. Can SH5 do the same and we never see the ship again? For instance, Bismark. Say you are sent to save the Bismark. You do not arrive in time. The Bismark is sunk. Does the game keep it sunk? If you are successful and keeping the Bismark safe does she steam off for port never to be seen again or does she steam on and sink other ships? The question inquiring minds want to know!

JU_88

02-02-10, 08:16 PM

Sure, and while we're at it, lets make the Type 21 be developed earlier, say in 1940, so it could be commissioned by 41. Force radar development sooner too. Then change the enigma codes on a monthy basis while we're at it. Having done that we could cut Englands lifeline and force them to capitulate by 42 and we'll all sing Deutschland Uber Alles while toasting our knights crosses at Unkle Karl's casino bar celebration party.

You are still speaking as if we all have some kind of warped fixation with the germans winning the war or something. I live in the UK -and im sure as hell glad they didnt.:rotfl2:

Everything you mention above, would involve very crude and deliberate tampering with historical events.
Sinking or Saving Ship X because you happened to be at a certain location at a particular time is not the same thing at all.

Like it or not, the freedom to go anywhere and sink anything pressents the player the possiblilty to deviate from history.
I know we all want it historical, but how do you suggest the players historical decrepencies (or blunders) be handled by the game?

Sure, ackowleging and responding to them goes against historical events (possibly).
But at the same time, totally ignoring them makes the SH world less belivable and forces a failure where there shouldn't be one.

Damned if they do, damned if they dont?

Im refering to the Bismark example, not the 'uboats swinging it around for an axis win', and certainly no major war/technological progressions where there weren't any, obviously that would be wrong on so many levels.

Ducimus

02-02-10, 08:30 PM

Mikhayl

02-02-10, 08:34 PM

I still think that if the system is properly balanced, then a captain playing with 100% realism should/will have very little global influence, aside from local/tactical changes. Well assuming the game doesn't let you sink 5 million tons of shipping with "100% realism" :88)

Even for the "remarkable" events, say you save the Bismack, in the end Germany still loses air superiority (nothing a sub can do about that) and odds are that the Bismark will just end up being a Tirpitz bis so ultimately it's not really a big deal.

I don't remember where it was, but a dev said that your actions can also trigger Allied reaction, for example sinking a carrier in a convoy will prompt them to stop doing that. Unlike SH3 where this is all scripted so you can sink a lot of battleships and carrier in convoys until they stop being scripted that way.

JU_88

02-02-10, 08:47 PM

I still think that if the system is properly balanced, then a captain playing with 100% realism should/will have very little global influence.

Now this is how im hoping it will be overall. :up:

codmander

02-02-10, 08:55 PM

ALTER THE WAR.........GAY :oops::oops::oops::oops:

Safe-Keeper

02-02-10, 10:09 PM

Remember you can't please everyone. In SHIII, you couldn't change history the least bit, and this left a lot of people frustrated. Now, in SHV, you can change history (at least in minor ways), and naturally this, too, leaves some people unhappy.

While I'm not too impressed with where SH5 is headed, myself, I respect Ubi's right to try out new ways to make sims, and appreciate the fact that us in the sim crowd have the excellent SHIII.

Silent Hunter 6 better be hardcore, though:O:.

I can just picture Bernard effing up history, though. "Herr Kaleun, ich seems to have accidentally fired ein eel schwarm! It's headed straight for ze Bismarck!"

Nickolas

02-02-10, 10:14 PM

ALTER THE WAR.........GAY :oops::oops::oops::oops:

grow up... :nope:

Nisgeis

02-03-10, 03:51 AM

I was using it as an example, I was mearly trying to remind people that every SH3/4/5 patrol we undertake is pure fantasy anyway.
It never happened. the best the sim can do is convey a sense of what it was like.

Just answering your post as it was posted :).

And so what if they do think that? Silent Hunter is a game, not an interactive history lesson for retards.
Anyway you could do the same Turkey shoot in the last two SH games on a low realism.

Hmmm, I think if someone really did wish that they'd been born in the 1910s / 1920s and also wished that they could have won the war for the Nazis, then they'd be a fairly strange fellow. There would be quite a lot wrong with it. (This part should be a nested quote, but that doesn't seem to work since multi-quote went in).

Theoretically it should be harder in SH5 because the game is allegedly able to respond to your actions (e.g by sending a bunch of escorts/planes to punish you for such reckless behavior.)

That would be a great improvement.

Sure I agree, by 1943, no matter what the player has done, the game should be giving off a STRONG Impression that its the begining of the end for the Uboats..
How do we know that this is not the case? I have not seen anything in that PDF that states "the player is able to secure an Axis victory and you vill be king of ze vorld!!'
Rather it says "will dictate the out come of the war on sea and land too" which is exactly what the U-boats did to some degree!
It doesn't say to what degree, its abit vague and open to interpretation

But of course people will jump to the worst possible conclusion... (again)

I was just posting what the two opposing views were. Once again, this is another example of how everyone has gone off down their own personal paths of despair, because Ubisoft has given out incomplete or vague information. People will assume the worst and hope for the best.

Bubblehead1980

02-03-10, 05:04 AM

As usual, Ducimus said basically what I was thinking:salute:

MercurySeven

02-03-10, 05:42 AM

Some things are entirely plausible, dynamic, and will not change historical events. A great example is as AVG mentioned, convoys being rerouted if a Uboat was known to be in a certain area. That really happened.

But things like saving the Bismark or altering any major historical outcomes so the Nazi's win should be right out. It's disgraceful and in extremely poor taste. Therego I don't think the campaign should handle those things any differently then it did in SH3 or Sh4.

I just finished a patrol in which I sank the Nelson near Gibraltar. Which was odd, because the patrol before I sank her north of Scotland. And the patrol before that I actually sank her near Norway. :hmmm: Now, I know that I had quite some (bad) luck to run into the Nelson three patrols in a row, but the fact that she did not remain sunk was kind of unnerving to me. Its not just "a Nelson class vessel" but the actual HMS Nelson, so in a simulation I would expect her to obey the laws of time and space and not just reappear no matter what I do.

I see your point, but in order to ignore such things as the sinking of important ships one would have to remove them and replace them with generic vessels of that class (such as in SH4 when I remember right). So either Hood, Nelson and Bismark are in the game and I can actually sink them (for good!) or they should not appear in it at all. And I for one would be kind of sad about that.

But as written here before: Saving the Bismark (however unlikely this actually is when SH5 holds its end of the dynamic campaign and reacting enemy AI as promised) or sinking the Nelson does not mean that the Brits will have to eat Sauerkraut from that day on. I expect that no matter how "dynamic" they make the campaign, a certain flow of gneric ships (merchant and navy) will keep on coming and thereby ensure that Britain holds out just fine.

And regarding the change of certain aspects of the war: I assume UBI chose Malta as a PR stunt for a good reason. It was important for the war in north africa and it heavily relied on convoy support, so cutting this support actually has a huge impact on Malta and explains why in SH5 it can fall to Italy. But what other aspect of the uboot warfare would have similar outcomes? Appart from africa the remaining targets are England, the Soviet Union and the USA and it would take a hell of a lot sunk ships to justify any change of the war that results in a defeat of those nations, so I assume ( / hope) that UBI did not include any win option for the Germans there.

THE_MASK

02-03-10, 05:52 AM

I think they said that the stock game has 250 convoys in it . Just mod 4 times that and the altering the outcome of the war should be fixed .

elanaiba

02-03-10, 09:36 AM

bigboywooly

02-03-10, 10:35 AM

What you will be able to change or not in the game, you will see. What we are trying to do is give the player a believable context to his actions.

I have 2 things to say about dynamic campaigns in the context of games placed in World War 2 - in other words "known history".

The first one is this - consider the aspect of the victorious allies. Would I be playing the good guys (US Submarines in Pacific for example), should they win no matter what?

If I were the Swordfish pilot hitting the Bismarck, should history continue unaltered if I miss my shot? Would that be believable?

Or substitute yourself for this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_David_Wanklyn. If I don't live up to his actions, should that not matter?

The second aspect is this:

If the consequences of my actions - regardless of the role I play in the game - do not matter, why do I bother playing my part?

We aim to teach players history by showing the REASONS and the possible CONSEQUENCES for engagements.

Take the example of the Bismarck. That ship was not just cruising to serve as target practice for the Royal Navy. They were trying to break out in the Atlantic and wreak havoc on British Trade. Would their success have mattered to any extent?

Interesting
A what if

So answer this if you can pls Dan

There has to be some form of scripting for the units to move right ?
Or how does Bismark know she has to be in the Denmark straits in May 41

So if I am sitting in the Denmark Straits and take out HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk before they spot Bismark and Eugen do Hood and POW still intercept or do the German ships breakout ?
Do the home fleet remain in port as if the raiders never spotted or will they sail anyway
Is the breakout scripted if the Br heavy units dont make contact in that convoys will continue to use battleships as cover against surface raiders and convoys stop sailing
And Bismark and Eugens careers continue ?
Etc
Or
Will Bismark still disappear from game on the 27th May 41 even if no one spots them during the breakout
Just how dynamic is dynamic ?

karamazovnew

02-03-10, 11:15 AM

All will be revealed in March...

I for one can't wait... I mean that. Dan, any possibility of getting my hands on a box fresh and hot out of the oven? Gameshop.ro doesn't even list the game :wah:

karamazovnew

02-03-10, 11:31 AM

any possibility of getting my hands on a box fresh and hot out of the oven?

Wind blowing... only a distant crow breaks the silence... :cry:

http://thewe.cc/thewei/_/images11/somalia/empty_street.jpe

Nisgeis

02-03-10, 11:58 AM

Wind blowing... only a distant crow breaks the silence... :cry:

Give it more than 16 minutes! When I pre-ordered SH3 from Ubisoft France, it arrived on the day of the release in the UK. Maybe they can do the same for Romania?

elanaiba

02-03-10, 11:59 AM

Oh come on, my primary job is building the game, you know?

Check PM.

Bubblehead1980

02-03-10, 12:07 PM

only 250 convoys?:damn::doh::down:

MercurySeven

02-03-10, 12:14 PM

Give it more than 16 minutes! When I pre-ordered SH3 from Ubisoft France, it arrived on the day of the release in the UK. Maybe they can do the same for Romania?

Amazon does send to all european countries for a rather civil bulk price if I remember right. When I was in Sweden I collected a few oders from my friends and we thereby spread those costs. In the end everybody had to pay 2€ or something like that for shipping.

I'm talking about a european Amazon of course, Amazon US might be a bit more time consuming. There are customs and of course shipping over the atlantic is usually a bitch ... with all the uboots and all that. ;)

ichso

02-03-10, 12:23 PM

OK.. fine.. I'll bite.

Too many people in this community, are so enthralled with the uboat romance, they are completely out of touch with historical perspective.

I'll give 3 quick examples.

1.) A patrol report someone wrote about U-181 during a wolves of war campaign some years ago. This user wrote in such a context that they were PROUDLY and DEFIANTLY flying the swaztika to the end.

2.) Another user putting the smiling happy german captain with the nazi flag superimposed in the background.

3.) another user posting a pic like this:
http://yoshi.backupot.com/Silent%20Hunter/Flag%20and%20Statue.png

So enthralled with the uboat romance, that the meaning behind that symbol has been completely erased. Nevermind the regieme, nor the what transpired in the war, nor the allied men, killed in the atlantic. No, instead just look at these poor uboat men in their epic struggle, these are the good guys!

The way people lament about them, you'd swear people wish they had won! And if you can change the outcome of the war in this dynamic campaign, now they finally have that chance. This is also the type of schitt neo nazi's, and any others who idolize the 3rd reich would jump at.

Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with a Uboat sim, in and of itself, but too many people here take it entirely too far. I played SH3 for a few years, and i always tried to be mindful of the regieme behind it all. And here's a confesson. I, like other uboat fans, had at one point lost perspective. I realized that, when one day, towards the end of a career game, i found myself looking at the swaztika as a flag of a friendly nation. That bothered me alot, and it made me realize just how out of touch with reality this uboat romance is.

SO yea, if you can change the outcome of the war, i have problems with that on many levels.

I felt practically the same about this.

If you then read a sentence as in the pdf:
Do you have any idea how "your" world will look like in May '43 ?
I know that they're not referring to the world outside of military here but still, this doesn't sound right at all.

onelifecrisis

02-03-10, 12:36 PM

No one stated that the uboat did nothing. Altering the outcome of the war, win/lose, is the issue. I'm all for events changing within my uboat world but not the entire world. Sure, a change of shipping lanes because my presence in a particular part of the ocean is welcomed. I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place as a result is ok. Winning the war or alternate reality does not work for me.

"I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place" is an "alternate reality".

Safe-Keeper

02-03-10, 01:47 PM

only 250 convoys?:damn::doh::down: You do realize they mean 250 convoy routes.

Iron Budokan

02-03-10, 01:51 PM

You do realize they mean 250 convoy routes.

Do they actually say 'Convoy routes" or are we supposed to interpret that? I don't remember reading 250 convoy routes, but I certainly may be mistaken. :up:

bigboywooly

02-03-10, 01:56 PM

Do they actually say 'Convoy routes" or are we supposed to interpret that? I don't remember reading 250 convoy routes, but I certainly may be mistaken. :up:

If its anything like previus SHs will probably have around 30 diff convoy routes with the convoy lasting for a period of around 6 months
Give or take

Be nice to think of 250 convoy routes but think a bit too much to hope for

AVGWarhawk

02-03-10, 01:56 PM

"I sunk an entire convoy so a large battle never took place" is an "alternate reality".

Yes, but not a historical reality. Historically the German lost. Historically the uboat up to 1943 played a large roll. Anything other than that is not reality. Looking to win the war via the game play is an alternate reality. I do not care if an entire convoy was sunk. Alternate or not, it does not change history in the real sense...if that make sense :hmmm: At any rate, changing the game to have the Germans win is not what I'm looking for. For others perhaps. Just my thoughts on the matter.

elanaiba

02-03-10, 01:58 PM

One thing I can say. Whatever you do in the game, it will not change the CURRENT REALITY THAT SURROUNDS US.

AVGWarhawk

02-03-10, 02:02 PM

What you will be able to change or not in the game, you will see. What we are trying to do is give the player a believable context to his actions.

I have 2 things to say about dynamic campaigns in the context of games placed in World War 2 - in other words "known history".

The first one is this - consider the aspect of the victorious allies. Would I be playing the good guys (US Submarines in Pacific for example), should they win no matter what?

If I were the Swordfish pilot hitting the Bismarck, should history continue unaltered if I miss my shot? Would that be believable?

Or substitute yourself for this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_David_Wanklyn. If I don't live up to his actions, should that not matter?

The second aspect is this:

If the consequences of my actions - regardless of the role I play in the game - do not matter, why do I bother playing my part?

We aim to teach players history by showing the REASONS and the possible CONSEQUENCES for engagements.

Take the example of the Bismarck. That ship was not just cruising to serve as target practice for the Royal Navy. They were trying to break out in the Atlantic and wreak havoc on British Trade. Would their success have mattered to any extent?

Good points! I like your idea behind what you worked to achieve. I can go for changes in your uboat world that affect you the skipper and crew but affect the utlimate outcome of the war? Not so much. Perhaps it was a good idea to stop in 43. :hmmm:

Mikhayl

02-03-10, 02:02 PM

If the game is well balanced and you play with all realism settings at 100%, you should never be able to sink an entire convoy or task force and so the point will be moot. I hope it will be that way.

If you sink one or two ships in a convoy of 20, the only effect you will have is to get more escorts on your back. The net effect of 2 ships lost will be minimal in the overall picture. So you don't change the outcome of the war, but things around you move a tad to build the feeling that you're part of the war, not just an outside element as in SH3/4.

In SH3 you can sink several million tons, in a dynamic environment that would be very problematic. If SH5 is made in such a way that you can't expect "Ace" tonnage all the time, then it's going to be a thrill as you'll actually struggle to have any influence to begin with, and any effect you do have will be very rewarding.

AVGWarhawk

02-03-10, 02:02 PM

One thing I can say. Whatever you do in the game, it will not change the CURRENT REALITY THAT SURROUNDS US.

:yeah:

elanaiba

02-03-10, 02:07 PM

http://www.usmm.org/capacity.html

bigboywooly

02-03-10, 02:19 PM

One thing I can say. Whatever you do in the game, it will not change the CURRENT REALITY THAT SURROUNDS US.

Wells thats pretty obvious as a game altering the course of history has no bearing on real life now
Esp a game set 60 odd yrs ago

Games such as the total war series allow you to alter the course of known history all the time
Changes nothing now
Just a game after all
As is SH5
A game not a sim

FIREWALL

02-03-10, 02:32 PM

I would like to thank you elanaiba for dropping by and talking to us. :up: :salute:

MercurySeven

02-03-10, 02:46 PM

I would like to thank you elanaiba for dropping by and talking to us. :up: :salute:

+1 :up:

Oh, and I have to admit to be (probably) wrong about my earlier assumptions on how hard it will be to (me: impossible) to put a real dent in the outcome of the war. At least the SH5 page suggests under "Campaign" that

The most important supply routes pass through the North Atlantic. Coming from Nova Scotia or Gibraltar, they reach England through South Western Approaches. These supplies allow the British to wage war against Germany. Strong and in high numbers, the British can’t go down in one swift blow, but without supplies, their war effort will be diminished, their people’s will tested and it will be only a matter of time until they’ll break down.Soooooo ... sounds like it will be at least POSSIBLE to have Britain surrender. :hmmm: Or thats just another piece of marketing rpg.

Well, regarding the campaign I personally am open for such new ideas as long as they are not the focus of the game and are pretty hard to accomplish. I draw a strict line between the game and the reality and can live with such a thing. Other games (especially RTS titles) have done similar approaches and I was fine with them as well. However, I do understand that this is a bit ... delicate so I would not be surprised to find a Mod that removes such alterations once SH5 has hit the shelves. (And yes, I hope that such Mods will be possible)