Question:

[looney]

As I understand the game has preset missions? If so what is the replayability of the game?

For instance I play TMO without the RSRD campaign cause I do NOT want to know where there will be a convoy. I want random convoys as much as possible. I understand there are some TF needed to allow for historical purposes but for the rest I rather have random convoys on historical routes.

[Safe-Keeper]

Updated - I want to have a detailed post to link to when people ask about the campaign, so I'm putting some more work into this one.

There's been a lot of ambiguity about this, which is incredibly frustrating, but here's how it seems to work.

First of all, the campaign layer seems to work just like in SHIII and 4 - a combination of random and scripted vessels, task forces, convoys and aircraft. You can still go where ever you want - the first thing I did when they let me out of the sub pen was to visit Bergen, which was for some reason patrolled by British vessels, and had a British merchant moored there -- in September 1939. I never knew Norway was a British colony prior to the German invasion:-?, but I suppose this is something mods can fix easily enough.

The way patrols work, however, is vastly different. In SHIII, if you fired up a campaign set in 1939, you'd be given grid coordinates in the area where the u-boats historically operated, and told to patrol them for 24 hours. In SH5, you're given "missions", which are basically objectives you have to achieve over the course of several patrols. So instead of being told to patrol AA23, then AA13, then AB45, now you've got the option of either sinking 50 000 tonnes in coastal waters or a hundred thousand tonnes in the western approaches. The deadline of these missions is June 1st, 1940.

In the sub pen, you're given the choice of one of these missions - do you think you can best help Germany by hunting coastal vessels along the coast of England, or do you brave the perilous Channel or go around the islands to hunt shipping from the other side of the Atlantic? Different objectives are worth different amounts of points - sinking 50 000 tonnes in coastal waters yield only one point, while sinking twice as many tonnes in the western approaches rewards you with three points. You get to request a new mission each time you leave the pen, so you can hunt in the coastal waters one patrol, then go for a few sorties in the western approaches, then go back to the coastal targets. I just unlocked an objective that tells you to break the British blockade between Britain and Iceland by sinking capital ships that patrol back and forth along a line indicated on the campaign map.

When the campaign ends, it branches into another, based on your performance (at least, that's how I understand it - haven't gotten that far yet).

So basically, as an SH5 skipper you've now got the option of choosing for yourself what area you want to patrol, and you've got more free reins when you do so -- no more do you have to stay within the tight confines of a grid rectangle while fat targets steam merrily past you just a couple miles away. It can be argued that this is not a very realistic approach, but I actually really like what the game is getting at, especially the fact that the AI reportedly reacts strategically to your actions. So I suppose that if I'm very successful at hunting shipping in coastal waters, planes and destroyers will be diverted to this area to protect them, and based on how well or poor you fare overall, the campaign will take a turn for the better or worse over time.

So to summarize:
- There's still the random layer.
- You've no longer got a grid system, but broad objectives to achieve over an extended period of time, such as "sink x tonnes in this area" or "sink ships patrolling along this line".
- According to the game cover, the AI reacts to your every move and shifts strategic power accordingly.
- You now get to change the course of the war, unlike in SHIII where every major event happened according to a script.

My opinion? It's an improvement in some ways, a step back in others.

The briefing you get from your commanding officer:
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Campaign1.jpg?t=1268223074

The in-game campaign map. I've already gotten one point for completing the "Invasion of Poland" tutorial mission.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Campaign2.jpg?t=1268222989

[CCIP]

Negative, it's actually quite the opposite. The game's mission structure itself is substantially more dynamic than previous titles. It's only branches of the progression of campaign steps (the depend on your success) and your crew that remain the same. Otherwise (and I think this is one of the points which people have not paid enough attention to in SH5 yet due to all the other issues), it's actually probably the first Silent Hunter game with a campaign that is truly dynamic (i.e. has a strategic AI and is affected by player progress), not merely random.

[RSColonel_131st]

Sounds pretty sweet, actually. In some ways, even the "100K needed to sink" make somewhat realistic sense since that simple seems the game's way of saying "We're gonna remove your command over our previous U-Boat if you can't make the cut."

Does in fact sound pretty good, especially if it's as dynamic as it seems (AI reacting to player patterns). And the visual presentation of the campaign also looks neat.

This thing does have a lot of potential when the modders and a few patches are over it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, I was a tad bit disappointed by the arcadeish "sink 50 000/100 000 tonnes all by yourself" bit, too. I was so sure it would be a collective thing, and that there'd be some sort of counter that rose as allied subs and Luftwaffe planes "sunk" other merchant ships, and you got to do your part or something. But as you said, nothing modders can't fix.

[CCIP]

Yeah, I really hope the campaign tasking is improved and the grid-system re-introduced into the game later. It has a lot of potential here. I really wish the campaign be built more around WHAT you sink rather than how much per se - tonnages should matter at some points, but given that you are playing a war that will inevitably be lost, I would rather see branches in career path rather than war progress in general modeled more thoroughly.

[looney]

Sounds good at least... it all depends on how it's implemented ofcourse.

I'm still not buying SH5.. the game needs to be good 1st (moslty bugfree so I think patch 1.4 minimum, compared to SH4). DRM is another thing dunno if that is a dealbreaker.

But cause I'm at work and recession struck (meaning i got time to spare). I'm pretty much lurking around here. Checking out all the sections I suddenly I saw the word MISSION.

tnx for answering my questions, I don't think 1 sub (specially a type 7) had that much influence on the war. As a whole they did. The way we decimate a convoy for excample is rediculous to say the least.

again tnx for answering (another 5min closer to end of day :yawn:)

[Safe-Keeper]

You shouldn't write off SH5 in any way, it'll be a great game once the patches and mods are in. Sure, it's bug-ridden now, but over time we'll fix it. Sure, it's unrealistic, but that's what mods are for. Keep checking back.

Despite its flaws and arcade-ish nature, I'm surprised by how much I'm enjoying this game, and I see huge potential here, especially with the many editors they've given us. Oh, and there's already many good mods out that fix some of the most apparent problems with the game.