Go here - Sink that [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

jdkbph

03-24-10, 02:54 PM

I started to post this in another thread, but I didn't want to hijack it with general comments and questions for debate.

Does any one else find this whole notion of mission success based on "Go here-Sink that" completely off the wall?

IMO, it's totally ridiculous! One mission says sink a bunch of AMCs and two carriers. Another says go sink a couple of battleships!

You sink multiple cruisers and the game treats that like it's not good enough?

Nonsense!

Many top aces, recognized as being among the best in the craft, went whole careers without sinking a cruiser. In reality only a small handful of capital ships were sunk by submarines during the entire war... mainly a result of blind luck (stumbling into the right place at the right time). Most sub skippers never even eyeballed an enemy capital ship through the periscope, much less fired upon and sunk one!

With a few very specific exceptions (the X craft attacks on Tirpitz for example) I don't think any RL sub or sub commander was ever sent out with the specific task of sinking a CV or BB - or a set number of ships or a specified amount of Merchant tonnage - like we are in SH5.

They weren't given orders to sink 25,000 tons, or else fail. They weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail.

Ridiculous.

As far as I know, submarines were typically sent out on "patrols" not missions. And they called them "patrols" for a reason... they went to an assigned area, nosed about for a period of time, attacked what came their way, and were hailed as heroes if they came home with a few decent kills.

OK so they were assigned the occasional mission, to be sure. But these were atypical - usually recon or spec ops type missions - not nautical assassinations.

So I've taken notice that the modders have already reduced some of the totally unrealistic tonnage requirements for mission success. But I think it needs to go quite a bit further. I think the tonnage requirements should be removed altogether... particularly when we (eventually) get a reasonable variety of ships to hunt, rather than every other one being a 10,000 ton tanker.

And of course, all success criteria bound to a specific number and/or type of ship (other than perhaps a general distinction between merchants and warships) should be removed entirely.

If the game is properly balanced, I think it's enough to say "Proceed to <specified area> and sink one or more <ships/merchant ships/warships>", depending on the type of assignment given and any high level operations (blockade, seaborne invasion, surface force transit, area denial, etc) being conducted in the assignment area.

Anything more than that is arcade. Success in the campaign, at the submarine commander level, should not depend on hitting a grand slam home run every time you step to the plate!

What say you?

JD

sergei

03-24-10, 02:58 PM

I think it's enough to say "Proceed to <specified area> and sink one or more <ships, merchant ships or warships>", depending on the type of assignment given and any high level operations (blockade, seaborne invasion, surface force transit, area denial, etc) being conducted in your assignment area.

Anything more than that is arcade. Success in the campaign, at the submarine commander level, should not depend on hitting a grand slam home run every time you step to the plate!

Agree 100%

THM

03-24-10, 03:06 PM

Yeah, that's really a crappy campaign. Arcade is a fitting description for it.

One of the most disappointing issues, because it's completely non-historic and cannot fixed easily.

I am unable to guess why UBI deviated from accurate mission orders to such a FPS nonsense. If they are trying to attract more casual gamers, it's a complete fail. It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation.

robbo180265

03-24-10, 03:21 PM

Yeah I'm not a fan of it either. I find myself having to leave merchants alone because I'm not in the right area and I can't afford to waste eels. This goes against the grain somewhat.

I can see what they were trying for (and probably for casual players it works fine) but for me - I'd prefer something more in keeping with the actual history of the U boats, or indeed the original SH3 idea of patroling a specific area only.

I'm also finding the lack of variety of ships to sink a tad worrying too - I'm not sure if SH5 will keep my attention if all I can sink is tankers and freighters.

Highbury

03-24-10, 03:23 PM

Another agreement. The whole concept of the mission based campaign is wrong IMO. I am quite sure that the most common mission was "patrol and sink commerce!"

All these missions for Capitol ships.... grrrr.. as someone once said on the SHIII forums. "My job is not to look for a fair fight. My job is to destroy enemy shipping"

McHibbins

03-24-10, 03:29 PM

This dynamic thing is crappy imho. Would like to have campaigns like in SH3+SH4.
I hated SH2 for this kind years ago and so i do now.

kylania

03-24-10, 03:40 PM

This dynamic thing is crappy imho. Would like to have campaigns like in SH3+SH4.
I hated SH2 for this kind years ago and so i do now.

We've got the editor, go to it! :) I'm sure we'll see a player made campaign more along the lines of "patrols" rather than "bag x number of unrealistic kills" stuff once the game it stable.

robbo180265

03-24-10, 03:42 PM

AVGWarhawk

03-24-10, 03:42 PM

We've got the editor, go to it! :) I'm sure we'll see a player made campaign more along the lines of "patrols" rather than "bag x number of unrealistic kills" stuff once the game it stable.

Agreed. Right now it is 'go bag an unrealistic number' but that is for the guys who like to blast stuff. Nothing wrong with that. We are missing a lot of things yet to make it more realistic. Hell, all of my torps work! Not one dud! In due time fellas. :up:

jdkbph

03-24-10, 03:47 PM

Agreed. Right now it is 'go bag an unrealistic number' but that is for the guys who like to blast stuff. Nothing wrong with that. We are missing a lot of things yet to make it more realistic. Hell, all of my torps work! Not one dud! I due time fellas. :up:

Hmmm.... I don't think the magnetic detonators are working at all. They will go off on contact, but when they're used properly, most just sail placidly by, a meter or less below their target's keel.

JD

kylania

03-24-10, 03:50 PM

Hmmm.... I don't think the magnetic detonators are working at all. They will go off on contact, but when they're used properly, most just sail placidly by, a meter or less below their target's keel.

JD

I watched one sail under a ship the other night and blow up just before it passed, so they do work. Slow speed helps apparently.

Armistead

03-24-10, 04:10 PM

It's not a subsim, just an arcade game. I'll keep waiting for the patches. I waited for your reviews and convinced i'll pick it up in the bargain bin later.
That's just pure silly...sink two BB, Carriers, ect....

I don't know how people play it. A few silly bugs would drive me mad.

All ahead extreme speed to SH4.

Vikinger

03-24-10, 04:47 PM

I Agree. I dont like what happend to the game now whit thos totaly unrealistic campaing goals.

I think its possible to mod thos goals so they have more realistic values but it will be hard to mod them away from the game and its beyond my knowleadge to do so.

For thos missions where we have to sink a specific target. Thos can be changed so the rooster have more ship types. Like any military boat instead of a carrier etc.

each patrol we do we also get thos normal mission types, patrol an area, insertion etc. If we could tune down and change the campaign goals and increase thos micro missions so we actually can get a new mission while we are out in a patrol when we have finished of one instead of going to port each time it wud be nearly the same then as it is in sh3 and 4.

But iam not sure if i will get involved in this kind of mod. I simply dont play the game anymore. Got tired of it after first campaign. It lasted barely 2 weeks for me. And it makes me kinda sad cuz ive allwasy loved the SH games untill this one was released. But i gived it a go only to find out that the game is not the same anymore.

Iron Budokan

03-24-10, 04:50 PM

Well, like you pointed out in your OP, it's an arcade game. So of course it would have cartoonish elements like this in it.

longam

03-24-10, 05:15 PM

Realistic or unrealistic, we haven't had any of that yet in SH3 or 4. All you did in those games was find - position - kill. How many times before that gets old?

In Sh4 you did have some goals which made it seem more interactive (interesting). Now we only need to find a balance with the new goals set and what works in game play for this to work.

Some need goals and some just need interaction with the game. I don't believe we'll ever have historically correct.

Noren

03-24-10, 05:26 PM

agree 100% to the topic

Can anyone answer me? How is this game dynamic?

...and a statement: did'nt the devs promise that we would'nt sink the
same capital ship twice?

Rip

03-24-10, 05:47 PM

agree 100% to the topic

Can anyone answer me? How is this game dynamic?

...and a statement: did'nt the devs promise that we would'nt sink the
same capital ship twice?

Yea, that was a big one for me as well. While I am not certain I have been told you can sink 50 battleships and there will still be more. :down:

EAF274 Johan

03-24-10, 05:56 PM

The only way that objectives like "Sink x tonnes merchant shipping" would make sense is if they represented strategic goals that apply to all forces, not just your boat. I wonder if the campaign engine can keep track of sinkings by AI boats? :hmmm: If that is the case, it might be worth keeping those objectives to show the course of the war, but represent it in such a way that the player sees he is just one of many who are contributing to the effort.

The "sink x carriers" is of course total rubbish.

Hartmann

03-24-10, 05:59 PM

To sum up.

SHV is a blank board full of garbage and trash that could need a heavy modding and remove DRM to become a good submarine sim.

it could need about one year, perhaps two.

Blood_splat

03-24-10, 06:07 PM

Back to the Pacific for me. I just can't get into this arcade game.

Turm

03-24-10, 06:23 PM

I watched one sail under a ship the other night and blow up just before it passed, so they do work. Slow speed helps apparently.
Well, I did a little testing last week and even shot a torpedo down the length of a ship, bow to stern, approx 1m below the keel. Slow speed, magnetic... nothing. I fired about 20 others at 90° AoB (using the test mission that goes with the 'BARF' mod), and not one of those went off either. All steam, all slow speed.

I found that if I set the depth by the graphic shown on the torpedo controls (e.g. 1m under the keel according to the image), they always struck the bottom of the ship. Setting them lower and watching them run just underneath, they never go off. :nope:

Anyway, back to the campaign. I'm not far through it yet, still in Nov '39, but overall I prefer the presentation of it to SH3. It is more interesting to have a general goal to accomplish over several patrols, and even have a choice of objectives (perhaps not historical, but adds a bit of variety for the player). Of course, the tonnage requirements are too high, and all the talk of warship requirements seems very 'arcade' too - I was surprised to see the task to sink a carrier in the Total Germany part I'm on currently.

If some tasks are not completed, I didn't think it was 'game over' though? Do the branching options become more limited, or does the game become harder later? (Perhaps extra mission-editor layers are 'enabled' to make it tougher). I thought it was supposed to work like that, somehow - and that's where the 'dynamic' part comes into it. It's too early for me to know, anyway.

But overall, in my opinion, the SH5 campaign format is good, but the actual tasks and requirements are not.

I feel SH5 would benefit from two campaign 'modes' - one being roughly historical and one being casual (which is what we have now). Of course, casual gamers surely want to go hunting big warships - that's probably the most 'cool/fun' thing to do. Having two modes would require a lot more development time (two separate campaigns) so no surprise we don't have such a feature.

I'm not looking forward to progressing in the war so much now, having just read of all those later tasks to go sink more warships!

Safe-Keeper

03-24-10, 06:39 PM

I am unable to guess why UBI deviated from accurate mission orders to such a FPS nonsense. If they are trying to attract more casual gamers, it's a complete fail. It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation. I don't know, I'd take up golf simulations if they had air strikes:rotfl2:.

Placoderm

03-24-10, 07:13 PM

In my (admittedly worthless) opinion, after nearly 4 weeks of playing and trying to mod this turd into something enjoyable, I have decided that Silent Hunter 5 is essentially like Cotton Candy...all pretty and full of fluff, but with virtually no substance or merit whatsoever.

...and like Cotton Candy, although it was tasty for a short while at the begining, the more I dig into it...the more sick to my stomach I become.

It all would not be so bad if I had ORDERED Cotton Candy, but I waited years and spent $50 for a first-class steak dinner from a 5-star restaurant with a first-class chef...but apparently the restaurant fired the chef and hired a clown in his place who, instead of my promised steak, brought me this fluffy and sweet but completely empty travesty instead.

Silent Hunter 5 appears to have been produced by people who were completely oblivios to history...both the history of WWII AND the history of what made the Silent Hunter franchise so successful before.

Until now, I had thought that it was "PT Boats: Knights of the Sea" that was the most monumental failure of reaching it's core audience in the history of gaming. It too was to be a beautiful and highly anticipated simulation touted for years in development as being the pinnacle of realism and design...and it too was released full of arcadish fluff aimed directly toward the ADHD & prozac-numbed masses. Silent Hunter 5 was supposed to be better than that, and in a way it was...at reaching those same sugar-numbed zombies.

25 knot Type VII's?
1939 convoys full of Liberty Ships?
Sink 5 Capital ships in one patrol?

Nah, no thanks...Trigger Maru is calling me back to my tropical paradise. :sunny:

:salute:

TarJak

03-24-10, 09:33 PM

I don't know, I'd take up golf simulations if they had air strikes:rotfl2:.
Same here. though I claim copyright on the name Golf Strike: 18 holes of Armageddon!:haha:

ReallyDedPoet

03-24-10, 09:45 PM

Sgtmonkeynads

03-24-10, 09:52 PM

sh3 = When someone sank the Hood and posted it on this forum, it was a big deal, it is rare and not everyone had even seen it before.

Sh5 = Everyone is required to sink the same ships, so if some one sinks the Hood annd posted it on this forum, We are like " Oh ! you finnaly got past that level, wow good for you, I did it twice yesterday.

The more and more I think of this, the harder and harder it is to play this game. I never had this problem with 3.

gimpy117

03-24-10, 10:08 PM

the other big problem is finding said ship as well. you dont always stumble into a carrier or BB every day.

EAF274 Johan

03-25-10, 01:59 AM

the other big problem is finding said ship as well. you dont always stumble into a carrier or BB every day.
Somehow I get the feeling that the AI taskforces are sailing deliberately in my path? Almost on every patrol I find myself near a taskforce (usually with a Battleships or Carrier) without even looking for them. Could be just coincidence, but I find it freaky.

YukonJack_AK

03-25-10, 02:47 AM

@Placoderm & Sgtmonkeynads - AGREE 1000%

The sad truth is it's all in the name of numbers. People want to sink carriers and battleships - it's exciting to see a capital ship going under. But atleast to me, it was a hell of lot more fun when you all of a sudden, ran into an old Nelson escorting a convoy in the Western Approaches. They want to make the game more exciting/approachable to the masses as they hope it will sell more units. Hell, they're making games dumber and dumber every day. They're even porting the "hard-core" simulator titles to the consoles (IL2, supposedly MS Flight Sim)! :timeout: This is probably the unfortunate future, so hold on to your copies of SH3/4... we'll look back fondly in years to come :nope:

And btw - Where can I go to reserve my copy of Golf Strike? Sounds fun, but does it have the Sex Rehab By The Bay: Bonus 9 Hole Course Pack? I'm not getting it if it doesn't. :shifty:

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 03:05 AM

I remember that a few weeks ago, after I've played SH5 the first time, and I was saying that is a crappy game, there were a lot of people that thrown stones at me, saying that I don't show enough positivity. Positivity for what?? Anyway, since Rubini's and Seeadler Wide Screen mod attempt on SH3, I am back to that game, SH5 is unplayable in my opinion, I've gave this Alpha or Beta stage RPG/Arcade game enough chances.

Kptlt_Lynch

03-25-10, 03:24 AM

It sounds to me like the answer is to port SH5's graphics into SH3 and be done with it.

Letum

03-25-10, 03:31 AM

It sounds to me like the answer is to port SH5's grapics into SH3 and be done with it.

Quoted for truth!

Juliano

03-25-10, 06:59 AM

It's like implementing air strikes in a golf simulation.

:o
THAT, my friend, would be totaly awesome!

:rotfl2:

PS: Can we have dinosaurs with lazers too?

Noren

03-25-10, 10:03 AM

that would be like eating having an orgasm, eating sushi and flying helicopter at the same time! Totally awesome that is.

SabreHawk

03-25-10, 10:18 AM

Hmmm ya know this brings a thought about something thats been on my mind lately. There is that option when in base before shipping out where one talks to the commander, and in that dialog there is the option of starting patrol without selecting a mission.
So it seems to me now that one can if one so wishes, simply do just that. Go out on patrol to anywhere you wish and sink whatever you wish. The ships and tonnage will count, and you can rack up quite a score. The only thing is none of it will count towards the missions and campaign.

But what im thinking is, that what you can do is mix it up and sometimes just go on patrol without a mission, and sometimes select a mission so that you can have campaign progress.
So just do every other patrol as an official mission for instance, and the others in between as non mission patrols. Thereby satsflying one's need to roam where you see fit, sinking what you see fit.

Hmmm, freedom of choice. What a grand idea.:salute:

thruster

03-25-10, 10:35 AM

mookiemookie

03-25-10, 10:45 AM

i think the specific missions to hunt a high value target can get abit far fetched after awhile. instead a more plausable approach would be:
- raid that harbour
- mine/hunt that approach
- weather reports
- i like the spy drop idea
- disrupt said convoy route
etc etc. more bigger picture strategic stuff i think would be more realistic.

Yes. I like these ideas. As far as I know, there was never an order given to "sink x number (or even one) capital ships" aside from Prien. It was a tonnage war against merchant shipping. While sinking an aircraft carrier or battleship was a great achievement, I think they were more targets of opportunity that came along while on a stated mission to sink merchant shipping. Too bad that game doesn't currently reflect that.

tomoose

03-25-10, 11:59 AM

.....I stated that all the devs needed to do was take the GWX modded version of SH3 as their starting point and improve that and they'd be onto a real winner. A no-brainer, laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank, winner!!! Instead, they tried to re-invent the wheel.........again. Guess what, the wheel's already been invented chaps no need to do it yet again!!!!!:06:

I know that sounds like "I told you so" but there's no way to write it and not come off as an "I told you so",.....LOL.:O: I'll just scuttle back down into the hold now, thanks! :D

Shkval

03-25-10, 02:11 PM

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 02:20 PM

To quote myself
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159298&highlight=Shkval
Thread "SH5 interview" page 1 and 4.
I told you so, it will and it does stinks up to the sky! What did you expect? Gaming audience is becoming more and more stupid every day, they dont want to bother with "Fast 90" calculations, realistic sensors, realistic weather, realistic horizont distance, they dont want SIMULATION! They want eye-candy, arcade aim-and-fire fight, do this-reward that style rubbish. On the other hand Ubisoft want's more money, so they moved to Romania. Romania? Ex-communist cheap programmers? No problem! But you will get 1000 more bugs than ordinary, animations sucks (I'm a professional 3d animator), fast fast fast spit&glue production. And what do you get at the end? BS.
Comparing other UBI products made in civilized countries with SH5 made by Ubisoft Romania, I've come to the sad conclusion that the word of order regarding romanian UBI devs is "incompetence", they should better go and pick strawberries in Spain or working as the lowest hand in construction industry in Italy. Maybe that way they would earn their money for their daily bread.

kraznyi_oktjabr

03-25-10, 02:55 PM

Comparing other UBI products made in civilized countries with SH5 made by Ubisoft Romania, I've come to the sad conclusion that the word of order regarding romanian UBI devs is "incompetence", they should better go and pick strawberries in Spain or working as the lowest hand in construction industry in Italy. Maybe that way they would earn their money for their daily bread.

No offence but in my opinion that is insulting. :cry: If Romania is not "civilized" country could you please point out which ones are?

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 02:56 PM

No offence but in my opinion that is insulting. :cry: If Romania is not "civilized" country could you please point out which ones are?
Finland, for example, talking in general, and Canada, talking in particular (Ubisoft Montreal).

robbo180265

03-25-10, 02:57 PM

No offence but in my opinion that is insulting. :cry: If Romania is not "civilized" country could you please point out which ones are?

It would appear that Gunnodayak is on a roll...........

Couldn't agree more with you - it's insulting:nope:

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 03:01 PM

It would appear that Gunnodayak is on a roll...........

Couldn't agree more with you - it's insulting:nope:
No, it's not, I live in that place, and I know what I am saying, maybe if you were saying that you wouldn't have that right. It's not very easy to admit that, but I am trying to be as objective as possible, looking at the facts.
Maybe you should come to Romania ... after that we would talk differently, believe me.:)

Vikinger

03-25-10, 03:16 PM

It have become better in Romania last years but before that it was real hard to live there. i have a co worked that is from the country and she have told me terrible stories how they lived there. No electricity for long periods.
You couldnt buy a television of free choose. The gouverment controled every thing you did and you had to have thier aggrement before you could buy or do anything.

However if i dont recall wrong sh3 and 4 was made by same team from rumania as sh5 is so that is not an excuse why they did pick this direction whit sh5.

Nordmann

03-25-10, 03:38 PM

Perhaps we shouldn't bash a country because of a game? After all, we all have our fair share of problems (*cough* Labour *cough*).

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 03:49 PM

Perhaps we shouldn't bash a country because of a game? After all, we all have our fair share of problems (*cough* Labour *cough*).
All I was trying to emphasize is that while in Romania is not very easy to survive (to "survive", not to "live"), the SH5 devs earn a lot of money compared to some teacher, to some medic, to some engineer ... from the same country. That's OK, but at least, make a good game, damn it! To earn the money that UBI is giving you. The same money WE are giving to UBI. Otherwise, you can lower your life standards and try to live on your welfare. It would be more honest than BS-ing us with your pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

Noren

03-25-10, 04:02 PM

Anyone accusing others of racism should take a ride through some of the eastern european countries (I did last summer), they are definitely less civilized than say Canada and Australia. But thats only my subjective perspective, Im sure that they consider themselves just as happy as anyone else.

Brag

03-25-10, 04:30 PM

I think, blaming the Devs it totally unfair. With SHIII they have shown that they are more than capable of producing an excellent game.
I see the dark shadow of Ubi kommisars telling the Devs how to do things.

Méo

03-25-10, 04:30 PM

with your pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game.

Just wondering...

Why are you wasting your time reading and posting about this pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game. :06::06::06:

----

Edit:

bah... don't need to reply, I know the aswser.

Gunnodayak

03-25-10, 04:35 PM

Just wondering...

Why are you wasting your time reading and posting about this pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game. :06::06::06:

It's simple, because it's a great disappointment regarding something I've expected to be done right, as a submarine simulator. And the way the ones who like the pseudo arcade shooter RPG wannabe mutant Beta state game are keep saying that, the same way I will say I don't. It's just the freedom of saying your opinion about a product you've bought any time you want.

Sorry, I've already replied, I forgot about your crystal ball that helps you know the answer to your question in the moment you've raised that question.

Nafod81

03-25-10, 10:43 PM

I kind of like the "dynamic campaign." I agree the tonnage limits are ridiculous (I use LC mod).

What I don't agree with is how is this a step back from SHIII and SHIV?

SHIII Go To X Grid and patrol for X hours.

SHIV Repeat trips to photo a cruiser in Tokyo harbour. Or the awful airmen rescue missions.

It's true the feeling to pass on a target because it's out of one's patrol area is unnerving. But I don't see it as any different than SHIII's go to X, then go wherever, sink whatever, we don't care.

That being said I think Capital ships are WAY too common in SHV. Considering I played SHIII for 4 years, I don't even know how many patrols, I only came within attack range of a task force twice. Only once was I even able to set up a somewhat decent attack. Although "realistic" it made the effort to model and include these capital ships rather pointless.

In SHIV they weren't common, but certainly were not rare. I recall several patrols where I'd pick off 2-3 capital ships each.

In SHV I've played 4 patrols, sunk 4 cruisers, 3 battleships and 2 carriers (And I'm not going into harbours). I see more task forces than convoys (two so far). Hell I'm passing up capital ships so I can meet my objectives.

LukeFF

03-26-10, 12:30 AM

The thing I miss with the dynamic campaign is how it was done in Aces of the Deep: patrol a particular grid square for a while, and then one would receive orders from BdU to move to another grid square. None of this "no new objective, patrol another area of your choice" nonsense that we now have. Dönitz kept a tight reign on his boats and he (heck, the same with the USN) wouldn't let them just wander off and patrol wherever the heck they pleased.

Compelling orders and radio traffic: it's sadly lacking from SH5.

kylania

03-26-10, 12:49 AM

Compelling orders and radio traffic: it's sadly lacking from SH5.

Should be able to add it pretty easily though, right? Events + scripting = teh win!

thyro

03-26-10, 05:38 AM

IThey weren't commanded to sink an Aircraft Carrier, or else fail.

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.

alexradu89

03-26-10, 06:36 AM

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

PS: Oh and, I don't think that the u-boat orders back in those days sounded like "go to this area, patrol around and sink 50k tons worth of ships and 5 destroyers 3 battleships 1 carrier, because even though we don't know where the enemy is, we just know that by some strange miracle, a british task force will just happen to be passing by". Some dynamic campaign this is. Really Ubi ?!

ReallyDedPoet

03-26-10, 07:10 AM

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.

The Allies lost 9 aircraft carriers during the war, 3 of the 4 Royal Navy losses were to German U-boats.From u-boat.net

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/br/cv_hms_glorious.jpg
The Courageous class aircraft carrier HMS Glorious. (http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3252.html) She was lost on 8 Jun 1940.

mookiemookie

03-26-10, 08:10 AM

We really shouldn't blame the devs for this because most of the guilt belongs to Ubisoft. It's Ubisoft's fault that they made the game more arcade (commercial; because every 10 year old kid wants a WW2 german submarine simulator for his birthday or under the Christmas tree instead of evil, un-christian games like shooters, action-adventure games etc. it's not like anybody enjoys shooters right?). The devs actually had a very tight and strict deadline, because like any major international company, Ubi doesn't really care about anything other than profit (who cares if the game is bought by a subsim fan or a casual gamer as long as "we get teh monee!1") and it's just not that easy to create a game in a small period of time.There's also the fact that the devs didn't really had full liberty of making the game, lots of "instructions" were being sent from the central Ubi headquarters even though those people had no idea what a submarine is(but that's just how everything goes).The devs of course have their share of guilt for various game malfunctions and lack of quality in the game but then again nothing's perfect (and some people just fail at doing their job).

You may be interested in this:

Ubisoft is a company, of which Ubisoft Romania is a part. Please stop separating the two. Not everything that is good is our merit, not everything that is bad is "the suits" fault. I, of all people, have my parts in the failures of SH5. The people "high up" could have simply decided not to do another SH, just as you guys can choose not to buy.

Sailor Steve

03-26-10, 09:55 AM

Aircraft carriers were used on WW2 against Germany?? If I'm not wrong they were mainly used on Pacific war.
It was Swordfish torpedo planes from HMS Ark Royal that brought Bismarck to heel and let the British battleships do their thing.

The longest hit recorded by naval gunfire was over 26,000 yards, made by KMS Scharnhorst against the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious.

While British captain Frederick John Walker created the hunter/killer group, once the United States got into the game these groups always had an 'escort carrier' with them.

The destroyer I served on, USS Brinkley Bass, was named for Harry Brinkley Bass, a navy F6F Hellcat pilot who was shot down by AA fire over southern France while flying off USS Kasaan Bay in 1944. Lots of carriers in the Atlantic and Med.

Steeltrap

03-26-10, 10:07 AM

The longest hit recorded by naval gunfire was over 26,000 yards, made by KMS Scharnhorst against the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious.

It's pretty much a tie (within a few hundred yards at most) between Scharnhorst and HMS Warspite....

Sailor Steve

03-26-10, 10:10 AM

Pretty much. But I was just replying to the question about Allied carriers against Germany.

Bilge_Rat

03-26-10, 10:12 AM

In the med too, my take on the sinking of HMS EAGLE during PEDESTAL:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6486/eagle0001.jpg

Steeltrap

03-26-10, 10:14 AM

Pretty much. But I was just replying to the question about Allied carriers against Germany.

I know. Was simply making conversation...as I don't own SH5 I have limited opportunities for input these days.

Sailor Steve

03-26-10, 10:18 AM

...as I don't own SH5 I have limited opportunities for input these days.
Same here.:sunny:

Jimbuna

03-26-10, 11:46 AM

From u-boat.net

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/br/cv_hms_glorious.jpg
The Courageous class aircraft carrier HMS Glorious. (http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3252.html) She was lost on 8 Jun 1940.

Permit me....the link:

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/types.html?type=Aircraft+carrier

thyro

03-26-10, 11:58 AM

It was Swordfish torpedo planes from HMS Ark Royal that brought Bismarck to heel and let the British battleships do their thing.

The longest hit recorded by naval gunfire was over 26,000 yards, made by KMS Scharnhorst against the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious.

While British captain Frederick John Walker created the hunter/killer group, once the United States got into the game these groups always had an 'escort carrier' with them.

The destroyer I served on, USS Brinkley Bass, was named for Harry Brinkley Bass, a navy F6F Hellcat pilot who was shot down by AA fire over southern France while flying off USS Kasaan Bay in 1944. Lots of carriers in the Atlantic and Med.

Cheers @reallydedpoet and @Sailor Steve for the info.

I knew we had couple aircraft carriers but wasn't aware we used them against Germany and to be honest never searched neither thought in that possibility. I had the impression that UK start to use them after WWII with Germany and during the Japan. Ok I need to read a bit more of this bit of history.

@jimbuna

thanks for the link