SH4 before DC2?

[Hornet]

So let me guess, Ubi.com has decided to make a Sh4 before DC2? Is that true? I guess so..... Well the subsim community has been begging for DC 2 to go with Sh3 for months, and I believe they deserve it. Without us, ubi wouldn't sale a game. So i suggest we tell ubi.com that we won't buy Sh4 until they make a DC2...... I don't plan on buying it until they do..... period.

[donw]

I plan to buy it. Period. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Well the subsim community has been begging for DC 2 to go with Sh3 for months...
I wouldn't mind seeing a new Destroyer Command, but the demands are actually coming from a relatively small handful. The big problem for a company is, how will it sell? Did DC sell anywhere near as well as SHII? Probably not. The original Silent Hunter is still popular after nine years, and SHIV is what the subsimmers (at least the American ones) really want.

[Hornet]

Well, let me ask you something. What do you think made sh2 last so long with the subsim community? The fact you could play head to head with destroyer command players I feel made it last as long as it did. The dd's would protect the convoys and the subs would attack the convoys. This competition so to speak drove the enthusiasm for the games. One game fed off the other and visa versa. When Sh3 came out ( within the first month ) the number of servers that were up at ubi.com was in the dozens, go look now even on the weekends, you will be lucky to see 3 servers up. I think the interests, number of people playing it is dropping. The main thing I hear from players, and I hear from hundreds, is that the one thing they miss is that head to head aspect of DC/Sh2 in Sh3. So In my opinion Sh3 will die out sooner than Sh2/DC because it will get boring without the head to head matchups. Human destroyers. The AI's are just to predictable, nothing beats a human competitor. I have had this opinion backed up by just about everyone at wolfpack league, which I know only counts as a small percentage of people, about 2,000. But all of them want a DC2, so its NOT so small a community that wants a DC2.

If sales is a problem, I did my part for ubi.com. I purchased 2 copies of Sh3 for myself, one to play and one for a backup,. I then purchased 4 copies for friends as Christmas presents. Thats 6 copies I have bought. If all of us in the subsim community did something like that, the sales issue wouldn't be one. For either game,. But I know I speak for a bunch of people, there are many things with Sh3 that hasn't been worked out yet to be talking about sh4. But if Ubi.com would spend half as much time advertising Sh3 and DC2 as they have on King Kong, half the planet would have a copy of Sh3 already. :yep:

[CCIP]

To be honest, myself - I'm not really interested in DC2. As much as it might be a big plus for multiplayer, not everyone plays multiplayer. I don't. It's the single player campaign that brought me to SHIII in the first place.


And personally, I don't think I'm very interested in an ASW game - because the campaign structure of it would have to be quite different from SHIII. If playing a submarine in a campaign is often hours of rather plain searching, an escort campaign on the same engine would be even less inspiring. Unless you jack up submarine encounters to unrealistically high levels. And, again, mind you - I have a strong preference for patrol simulators rather than attack simulators. The immersion factor, for me, goes through the roof if the game lets me do full patrols instead of the engagement part only.

However, I would love to see a surface simulator using an improved version of the SHIII engine - but rather than commanding escort vessels, I would have liked it to be a battle squadron command game. Those would make for really exciting career-type games, I think, and their patrols would inevitably be memorable.

Just my two non-multiplayer, patrol-simulating cents cents :)

[Marhkimov]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

[HEMISENT]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

Ditto!

[CB..]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

i have to say the same here ---only game i really enjoyed on line was quake--but i reckn it would do no harm at all if the devs included a couple of player operated destroyers with their own screens et al--no need for an actual campaign for them just a couple of training missions would do the trick and the ability to select them during multiplayer-as once the destroyers are in the game the community can very quickly take care of the rest---

and "driving" a DD is good fun--even if i wouldn't want to play thru an entire campaign--they don't have to go completely mad with the thing--just a decent model-- decent screens for the sonar hydrophnes and DC launchers and bingo the community will lapp it up---so they don't really need to make DC2 --just include a couple of playable DD's in SH4---they should really have done this as a matter of course in SH3--it's not going to reduce sales of the game -and multiplayer with drivable subs AND destroyers can only help maintain interest--lets face it if DC and SH2 had worked perfectly and was 100% stable on line then it would still be a big hit on line even now--much older games than these are still very much alive on-line simply because the multiplayer works extremely well and is reliable--Red baron 2/3d for example--

[Cdre Gibs]

Ubi would make more money if the online side was worth while. More ppl play online games than those who dont. I'm not refering to just SH in any form either btw, I'm refering to most PC games. Online is where the money's at - so if UBI want to make SH earn a profit, that then will drives UBI to make new versions of SH, they must look to the online side as well.

Taking that online is where the money's at, then is stands to reason that ppl would prefer H-H play rather than just CO-OP. CO-OP could/should still be a part of online but TEAM SIDE based, ie: Subs V's Surface units (dont always have to be DD's n DE's). This would then keep SH alive and kicking far longer than just Joe Sub driver lurking in the depths ever will. With good AI to back up the human playes for numbers in game, UBI will have an all round winner.

[CB..]

yes i agree--it's perhaps a shame that they shied away from the whole concept of inter-op between two seperate games---but having done so they should havetaken a leaf out the big MMP ww2 games like BF42 etc and included the DD's for multiplayer--

if you ask me there is room for expanding on the concept of games like BF42 where it's possible to fly planes captain ships sub etc in a semi arcade way and go the whole hog and release independant full simulations of these different vessels and allow them all to inter-op on line--so in effect you would have BF42 but with full sim difficulty and specialisation---
folks might wonder at the expense of buying variuos different games for the whole experinence but this would be in no way compulsory and would build up over time to a truly immense MMP on line war simulation---everything from subs of all sides--destroyers --flight sim quality coastal command sunderlands etc providing air cover---no real limtations at all--a real money spinner no doubt (to be cynical) but if they pulled it off they would deserve the money IMO it would be a huge investment---- and the on line world it would allow for would be if it was stable and reliable would become an awfull lot of peoples favourite hang out--and would allow with the inclusion of a "coastal command asw" sim would briing the two groups of enthusiasts together (flightsimmers and sub/naval-simmers)in the same franchise--and that would surely more than double sales as the FS world has a far far larger fan base--

personally i'd love a fully simulated sunderland asw aircraft to fly on line interop against human "driven" u-boats and protecting convoys escorted by human "driven" destroyers ---i really believe the old SH2 /DC inter-op concept could be absolutely huge if done without buggs


mean time tho they should include drivable DD's in SH4 just beacuse it makes dang good sense--

[Hitman]

Another one here who prefers single rather than multi :up: , however I agree that the sim should ship Multi to please the guys with a taste for that kind of action :yep:

[The Bandit]

I think that if they do make a sequel to DC then it should be a little more ASW based, and should have more controlable platforms. I think it would kick ass to captain a Flower class Corvette on convoy escort duty. The DC campaign kind of pissed me off. You went from one ASW mission of the east coast, I think there was a convoy mission too, and then your fighting a big surface engagement against light cruisers in the english channel. Its not only multiplayer, I think that if UBI made DC2 with the same sort of evolving dynamic campaign it would be quite an experience. You could see the U-boat war from the other side. Be able to see the introduction of Radar and HF/DF and by the end of the war you could call in air support from an escort carrier and have an Avenger come in with sono-bouys and arial-dropped torpedoes. I think if they did it right, they would have one hell of a game.

[CCIP]

I'm certainly not saying that there isn't potential in the concept.

BUT!

Majority of gamers aside (the majority of players don't play SHIII, period) - I think it's safe to say that virtually every SHIII fan would much rather see a completely polished campaign and better-modeled sub to play in that campaign, than a half-finished sub and half-finished destroyer slugging it out somewhere in the half-finished Atlantic :hmm:

I think the Ubi team here is still learning to make single-player subsims. Let them get that single 'sub' part right before demanding a destroyer.

I think it's fair that most of us want a solid-modelled sim that works properly offline before something that goes well online :hmm:

Plus, for the aspiring sub-hunters, there's a fifty times more solid and feature-filled DW, where ASW is a little bit more brains than just making quick and dirty guesses at where that sub is and dropping a chock full of charges over it :)

[edit]

As far as a single player escort game...

What I think would suit things better is not a destroyer sim game but a convoy escort command game. And that would require a slightly different approach.

That said, commanding a convoy or convoy escort rather than just a destroyer could make for an excellent and unique tactical wargame. :)

Actually, here is a proposal:

Make an SHIII-engine based game where you could command small attack boat groups, convoy escorts, hunting/support groups, or even big battle groups. You'd be the squadron commander sitting on one of the ships, and issuing orders to not one, but a whole number of units. You'd have both an SHIII-style nav map with waypoints, and radio menus to automatically make them execute manuevers and such. If needed, you could also take direct control of your boat a-la SHIII, and fire some cannons and torpedoes by hand or something.

Now THAT would be a much cooler approach. :up: :up:

[CB..]

Actually, here is a proposal:

Make an SHIII-engine based game where you could command small attack boat groups, convoy escorts, hunting/support groups, or even big battle groups. You'd be the squadron commander sitting on one of the ships, and issuing orders to not one, but a whole number of units. You'd have both an SHIII-style nav map with waypoints, and radio menus to automatically make them execute manuevers and such. If needed, you could also take direct control of your boat a-la SHIII, and fire some cannons and torpedoes by hand or something.

Now THAT would be a much cooler approach. :up: :up:

now that's a damn good idea--not only does it re-use the SH3 engine for another game (good economics from UBI's point of view with any luck) it allso allows for the revitalisation of SH3 it self by introducing the possibility of inter-op against DD's

every ones a winner surely--sales of SH3 continue --sales of the new surface version of SH3 accumalate --and it all works to promote interest in SH4--

[scrapser]

I've been playing sims since 1985. I never got into playing online mainly because I like working within the parameters set up by the sim itself. When you introduce online capability, you have to deal with all the idiots out there who want to tweak, cheat, or simply go off on their own and try to show off. Yes, there are some sincere players out there but truth be told, I bet they would prefer a LAN based engagement over the Internet option. The main point here and what I think I've accidently been lucky enough to avoid is the "watering down" effect of having every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly be part of a sim. I can think of other examples where the Internet has had a negative impact by introducing a flood of people into what was until then a tight knit group. Too much of anything is not a good thing.

scrapser

[CB..]

I've been playing sims since 1985. I never got into playing online mainly because I like working within the parameters set up by the sim itself. When you introduce online capability, you have to deal with all the idiots out there who want to tweak, cheat, or simply go off on their own and try to show off. Yes, there are some sincere players out there but truth be told, I bet they would prefer a LAN based engagement over the Internet option. The main point here and what I think I've accidently been lucky enough to avoid is the "watering down" effect of having every Tom, Dick, and Harry suddenly be part of a sim. I can think of other examples where the Internet has had a negative impact by introducing a flood of people into what was until then a tight knit group. Too much of anything is not a good thing.

scrapser

i agree i used to really look forward to multiplayer games---spent months online in combat flight simulator--and just as long in Red baron 3d--a stunning game on line!--but the never ending parade of clever dicks all of them coming out with the same insulting rubbish (and belive-ing them selves to be unique in this clever ness lol) finally became so intrusive that it was no longer worth the effort of trying to keep them out--
i didn't mind this sort of thing when playing Quake -as it is allmost part of the game lol but my brain can't cope with quake anymore---a couple of hours and i'm in need of medication !


since then i have given up entirely on multi-player--

[Sailor Steve]

Actually I spent a lot of time playing SHII/DC online, and loved it. I just don't think SHIII was designed to work that way, though I could be wrong, since there is a multiplayer function.

I just want to see another SHI with the modern graphics and goodies.

[CWorth]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.

Exactly my sentiments...

I play for the single player aspect only...never have played multiplay and never will with SH3..no point in it to me.

AS for Destroyer Command 2..I can live without it.I'd rather command a submarine than a destroyer anyday.

[g-z]

I'm satisfied with just playing single-player SHIII.

However, I can't help but crave some competitive LAN action :dead:

[thasaint]

Well, let me ask you something. What do you think made sh2 last so long with the subsim community?...

what does that have to do with how many games they sell? the game is already sold, whether the person plays it for a month or 6 months...

and onto my opinion. i like both styles, but a great single player replayable game (i.e. dynamic campaign) is more important than multiplayer for me... i have enough MP games, silent hunter is an escape from them, just me and my tub sinkin ships :)

[Cdre Gibs]

SH III is far to easy Player V's Bots. The only time I break out in a sweat is - Sub V's Sub, Player V's Player.

In fact the predictability of the AI is the main reason SH will never make it to the big league, the repetiveness of the action makes SH the same as fishing - the art of waisting time. Adding a little spice to the mix is never a bad thing (mind u tho, I luv fishing :D ).

I would luv to skipper say a Cruiser or BB with DD's an DE's in escort (All player controled) and take on other surface units whilst I have to worry about some nutter in a Sub out there somewhere determind to put a dent in my day. Or bring a Convoy in and try to sink my opponents sub, take a TF and do a shore bombardment and maintain a defencive perimeter to keep the subs away while they try to sink me.

Diversity is the spice of life.

[martes86]

The multi-mode should be a must on all games. I like the multi-mode. One loves it when he plays with the right people. I loved the multiplayer features on SH2/DC (and now on SH3) because I played with friends, my Flotilla friends. No cheats, no angers, nice people, great times. I get everything.

The bad thing of multiplayer comes when you don't have any friends to play with. Then you are forced to play with strange people who may not behave how it's expected.

SH4 should be far better than SH3 initially was, among with some other features. If it doesn't meet my expectations, then I won't buy it. I prefer a DC2. :hmm:

Cheers

[Ginger Beer]

I seem to remember that when the subject of DC2 was broached by Neal, Drebbel et al during their meet-up in the summer, Florin Boitor said that it was a possibility but that it would need a new game engine. It can't be done with the current ( SH3 ) one...thats the impression I got anyway.

Drebbel, Neal...perhaps you could confirm that ?

[MarshalLaw]

Hello everyone,

I understand both sides of this issue, but when you disregard the multiplayer aspect. The game WILL die off. The older a game is the more important Multiplayer is. I don't care how dynamic a single player option is after some time there is little challenge in it , because you know how the AI will react. Yes there are people out there that will cheat and try their best to develop cheat shortcuts etc. That's why you play in leagues so there are clear cut rules to combat the cheat.

If it's not possible for DC2 to interact with SH3 so be it, let the Dev team focus this aspect on SH4

[Marhkimov]

Online multiplayer? Not true.

If I were to make an un-educated guess about people who play SH3, I'd say that 90% of players play offline, and have not and will never try an online match.

Anyone else like this?

[martes86]

I must disagree with that statement, when it comes to make it a general statement. At least 95% of all the active members of the 24th Flotilla play or have at least played once a multiplayer mission. Of course, I don't have the numbers of the rest of the communities. :D

Cheers

[Marhkimov]

But I think it's safe to assume that most SH3 players have never tried an online match, for whatever reason.

[Cdre Gibs]

But thats the thing Marhkimov, because most SH3 players DONT play online and UBI didnt enable a SOLID online feature too SH3 is why we say it WILL die off and why it never SOLD that well. And thats the bottom line, for UBI to keep making SH versions it NEEDS to be a market success, atm sh3 is a finacial flop. How long do you think any company will keep flogging a dead horse ?

I dont know the total figures for SH3 sales but I do know it went to the Bargin bin very very quickly, a sure sign the game did NOT do well regards sales. There was even reports that some store's could not even give it away. Now I'm not bashing SH3 just stating hard cold economical facts, if a game does not sell well its soon passed over for greener pastures. That will include any Ex Packs or later versions. It wouldnt surprise me at all if SH4 was the LAST SH version ever if sale figures followed SH3 figures.

To stop this from being the last ever SH version, any means to increase sales MUST be taken into account. 1 of those is a Solid Onliner capability with diverse player interaction and should not be over looked.

To achieve this it will require Head to Head contest (Player V's Player) and the only way thats gonna happen is if some play with surface units whilst other use the subs - ie: DC2 (or better)

[martes86]

But I think it's safe to assume that most SH3 players have never tried an online match, for whatever reason.

Hmmm... Certainly, I don't see many players in Ubi when I'm going to have a game. Maybe... :hmm:

[Dowly]

I dont know the total figures for SH3 sales but I do know it went to the Bargin bin very very quickly, a sure sign the game did NOT do well regards sales. There was even reports that some store's could not even give it away. Now I'm not bashing SH3 just stating hard cold economical facts, if a game does not sell well its soon passed over for greener pastures. That will include any Ex Packs or later versions. It wouldnt surprise me at all if SH4 was the LAST SH version ever if sale figures followed SH3 figures.

To stop this from being the last ever SH version, any means to increase sales MUST be taken into account. 1 of those is a Solid Onliner capability with diverse player interaction and should not be over looked.

My guess for the low sales numbers is that people just dont like WW2 submarine sims. I mean, the sim ppl buy them, but only the sim ppl. And the multiplayer wouldn´t have made the sale numbers much bigger. Just my guess. :roll:

[martes86]

But without the multiplayer, maybe some people wouldn't have bought it.
Some just prefer the single, others the multi, and some others both. And it's possible to make everybody happy. How? By making a great single-player campaign, and an exciting multiplayer mode. And how can be the multiplayer mode the most exciting? By making it possible to have human players in both the Sub and the Destroyer side. There should be the possibility to choose. That's how most communities played SH2/DC, and was a success.

Cheers :rock:

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually, WWII submarine simulations are the FPS of the naval warfare genre. That is, they outsell their counterparts, like modern naval sims, greatly. By simulation standards, SH3 was a blockbuster.

[Marhkimov]

I dunno...

I'm not sure if I believe that online multiplayer will enhance/save the sales numbers of SHIV. As someone posted earlier, only diehard-naval-sim-freaks will buy this type of game, and a true diehard-naval-sim-freak will buy SHIV regardless of online multiplayer or not.

On the other hand, your casual Counter-Strike-FPS player will not even bother to take a gander at SHIV, even if Ubi decided to go all out on the multiplayer aspect. I can use all of my real-life friends as an example. I know over 10 people that play CS all the time, and they'd never try SH3, even if it had the most kick-ass multiplayer on Earth. To the general public, "submarines are boring" no matter how you slice it. Multiplayer is not going to save SHIV... I agree that it will make you guys happy if Ubi decides to go for it... But the overall sales for Ubi aren't going to change dramatically, one way or the other.



Actually, WWII submarine simulations are the FPS of the naval warfare genre. That is, they outsell their counterparts, like modern naval sims, greatly. By simulation standards, SH3 was a blockbuster.
And yes, I agree with this. For all naval combat games, SH3 was definately a blockbuster. Though that doesn't say very much... Even a half-baked FPS would kicks SH3's butt.

[Dowly]

On the other hand, your casual Counter-Strike-FPS player will not even bother to take a gander at SHIV, even if Ubi decided to go all out on the multiplayer aspect. I can use all of my real-life friends as an example. I know over 10 people that play CS all the time, and they'd never try SH3, even if it had the most kick-ass multiplayer on Earth. To the general public, "submarines are boring" no matter how you slice it. Multiplayer is not going to save SHIV... I agree that it will make you guys happy if Ubi decides to go for it... But the overall sales for Ubi aren't going to change dramatically, one way or the other.


I agree on those CS players! I once played the Rome: Total War and I was just about to attack a fortified city. The screen was full of hundreds and hundreds of soldiers in 'Testudo' formation advancing towards the city as the defenders poured their arrows and hot oil on our necks. And believe me, that was the most beautiful scene I`ve ever seen in a single game I`ve played.

Then my friend asked: "So, what´s so good about this game??? Those stupid a**holes just march towards and let the enemy kill them!? What´s the point!!?? This is just stupid!!"

I swear, I almost punched him. :)

[martes86]

I dunno...

I'm not sure if I believe that online multiplayer will enhance/save the sales numbers of SHIV. As someone posted earlier, only diehard-naval-sim-freaks will buy this type of game, and a true diehard-naval-sim-freak will buy SHIV regardless of online multiplayer or not.

:hmm: Then I'm not so of a freak as I thought. :lol: :P

The multiplayer may not save the game, but it will make more people happy. :D

Cheers :rock:

[Safe-Keeper]

It depends on the game, I think. Simulator games of SH's kind just aren't made for MP, ask you me. Although an MP career option would be nice - imagine carrying out a patrol with a buddy, returning, saving the game, joining up again tomorrow for a second patrol...

Despite the fact that humans in general as smarter and more innovative than bots, there's the fact that realism and immersion often goes out the window once you add MP. I mean, how many Tommies bunny-jumped in World War II? Bots may be dumb as rocks, but they at least don't pretend to be on pogo-sticks :nope: .

[Ishmael]

I'll add my 2 cents worth here. As an ex-DD sonarman, I've always played subsims going back to Red Storm Rising. When SH2/DC came out, I bought and played both games offline. When I started to play online, I wound up playing DD 99.9% of the time. This was usually because there were so few players who had DC I could only get a game as a DD. Add to this I was playing on a 56k dialup modem first with the UBI game engine then with messerwetzer, it would take 2 hours to set up a game and then I would drop after 10-15 minutes. Also, though I laud DC for it's use of various ship stations for realism during SP, it actually proved to be a detriment for MP play switching from CIC to Sonar to depth charges to radar and gunfire director. Add to that the DC bug which blocked active sonar every other time you went to the sonar station, it was just too complicated for the average gamer. Even an real-life experienced hand like me found it maddening at times.

I contrast this with my experiences playing Red Baron 3D as an RFC 101 Blackadder. I participated in 3 World league tournaments as well as a couple of Great War tournaments with 150-200 players online in the games.

Any MP option for sub vs surface must strive for simplicity. DCs shortcoming was that, because DDs were multi-role, it strived to be all things to all people and it proved detrimental to online games. In this respect, any DC2 should probably be aimed at ASW. The problem with that idea is the fact that the Pacific Theatre was primarily a multi-role mission area for DDs. Other than USS England, I would be hard pressed to remember an ASW hunter-killer group operating in the Pacific.

While I will indoubtedly by either or both SH4/DC2, I doubt if we'll see another DD sim for the reasons above.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Grom]

I'm sure I speak for the majority of SH3 players when I say this...

I hate multiplayer.


I play SH3 for the single player aspect of it. Regardless of crappy AI, regardless of no wolfpacks, regardless of all problems with single player, i'd still rather play solo than with other online people.
I'm sure, my "speech" is for majority of surface vessel players. We were given small promise that Ubisoft will work over DC2, all depends how SH III will deal on market. I think SH III was one of bigger and most important products in all these years. SH2 became so popular after DC was on sale. Then SubClub with its flotillas/desrons was full of players ready to battle. We had a lot of fun while fighting around merchant ships. You preffer offline play ? Your choice, but You dont speak for majority, You speak for yourself only. Its because You probably never had alive DD skiper above Your sewer pipe. AI ? You can trick it like a child, its simply and easy, and then every SH III guy would say "damn i am good". But for sure You haven't tried Your tricks with real player. Overall Destroyer Command it wasnt game about escorting convoys and ASW tactics only. To be good in DC first we had to understand many battle-stations as it was tottaly new idea. When i knew DC, depth charging was one of easiest tasks in battle. Try to fight against few Ju-87's diving on Your deck, almost impossible to avoide the bombs. This was game about surface vessels tasks during the WW2, not about boring u-boot chasing. Give me one more time some battle-cruiser like mighty Schranhorst and let me make my crusade against allied convoys. This was a sim with many many more possibilities than ASW only. Its sad to read such opinions, especially beacuse surface vessels players are not small part of subsim community.

There is possible to play SH III as surface vessel player but to have DC2 it would be necessary to unite many people and work over modding SHIII to change it into DC2.

[Takeda Shingen]

This disagreement is easily solved: http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=434481#434481

Rather than say what the community thinks, let us see what they think.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, at the time of this post, 31 members have voted and expressed a preferance for single play by 20-11, nearly a 2-1 margin. Given demographic data reflecting that only a small number of SubSim Forum Members are actually active members of a VF or other online club, it appears that a wider polling sample would likely drive those numbers further into the favor of single play.

Now we know who speaks for the majority.

[Grom]

Now we know who speaks for the majority.
There is almost 14 000 totally registered users at this forum. The group of 31 persons is not representative group to talk for all.

Otherwise

You have to accept that in such proportions as example:
if 200 thousands ppl preffer single player
then 110 thousands preffer multiplayer.

You can say only 110 thousands or this number of ppl is really impresive and might is worth give them for multi. Because they are still our customers.

[thasaint]

On the other hand, your casual Counter-Strike-FPS player will not even bother to take a gander at SHIV, even if Ubi decided to go all out on the multiplayer aspect. I can use all of my real-life friends as an example. I know over 10 people that play CS all the time, and they'd never try SH3, even if it had the most kick-ass multiplayer on Earth. To the general public, "submarines are boring" no matter how you slice it. Multiplayer is not going to save SHIV... I agree that it will make you guys happy if Ubi decides to go for it... But the overall sales for Ubi aren't going to change dramatically, one way or the other.


I agree on those CS players! I once played the Rome: Total War and I was just about to attack a fortified city. The screen was full of hundreds and hundreds of soldiers in 'Testudo' formation advancing towards the city as the defenders poured their arrows and hot oil on our necks. And believe me, that was the most beautiful scene I`ve ever seen in a single game I`ve played.

Then my friend asked: "So, what´s so good about this game??? Those stupid a**holes just march towards and let the enemy kill them!? What´s the point!!?? This is just stupid!!"

I swear, I almost punched him. :)

so true, friend of mine in my BF2 clan saw me playing SH3 on xfire daily for hours on end, he asked me about it. after i described the game to him he bought it... played it for a day or so then asked me how i could play such a boring game for so long... riiiiiiiiiight...

ishmael has good points... i also had DC, and all the people who cry for a DC probly sat in their subs and expected the OTHER person to sail the destroyer... the entire thing was riddled with bugs, and in general multiplayer games are way less complex than single player, and if they're complex they tend to not work well. so dumb it down (yawn) or make a great singleplayer game. i think i take option 2 :)

[Takeda Shingen]

There is almost 14 000 totally registered users at this forum. The group of 31 persons is not representative group to talk for all.

Otherwise

You have to accept that in such proportions as example:
if 200 thousands ppl preffer single player
then 110 thousands preffer multiplayer.

You can say only 110 thousands or this number of ppl is really impresive and might is worth give them for multi. Because they are still our customers.

I see that you have never done a population sample before. I can also see that you will argue regardless of the actual results and findings. This renders any further discussion fruitless and without merit. Accordingly, I bow out and leave you gentlemen to your bar fight. I suggest that chairs and bottles make sufficient instruments of mayhem.

[Marhkimov]

Don't worry Takeda Shingen, most of us know how to correctly evalute a population sample.

Results are results, whether I agree with them or not...

[Grom]

I see that you have never done a population sample before. I can also see that you will argue regardless of the actual results and findings. This renders any further discussion fruitless and without merit
Or Your arguments are short of base so better is raise Your head and step outside. Is that how democracy working ?
First of all not every users browse this part of discussion board so You suceed to avoid them.
Second of all there are many many more users of seasim games than You can imagine, and many many more than registered are here.

So this poll is doubtfull wether You like it or not. Is taht clear enough ?
O yes i'll leave for the time of using the bottles in this pub.

[Marhkimov]

Why are you trying to disagree with a perfectly legitimate poll? I have a feeling you will never like the results, unless they display what you want them to display...

In that case, it's not even worth it to start a discussion with you. I've already said too much...

[Sheppard]

Well the subsim community has been begging for DC 2 to go with Sh3 for months

I for one, do NOT want a Destroyer Command 2; PERIOD. Requiring DC2 to come out and work with SHIV would cripple both games; like SH2 and DC were crippled together.

[HS]

Make an SHIII-engine based game where you could command small attack boat groups, convoy escorts, hunting/support groups, or even big battle groups. ...

I would luv to skipper say a Cruiser or BB with DD's an DE's in escort (All player controled) and take on other surface units whilst I have to worry about some nutter in a Sub out there somewhere determind to put a dent in my day. Or bring a Convoy in and try to sink my opponents sub, take a TF and do a shore bombardment and maintain a defencive perimeter to keep the subs away while they try to sink me.

Diversity is the spice of life.


I absolutely agree with those authors. Check out the old GNBNA fan website or the NWS forum for FS and TAS and you will find that there was and still is interest for naval surface unit sims that were introduced in the 90s of the last century! I personally don't see a reason why it shouldn't be extremly exciting and challenging to command e.g. the British Home Fleet or a lonesome German surface raider in a Dynamic campaign environment like it's offered by SH III, combined with good graphics. In good old GNBNA it was even possible to use BB float planes and carrier based planes. :up:

[JU_88]

Im happy with either DC2 or SHIV, but I really just want SH3 finnished. If they wont do it then at least release the source code so we can! :damn:

[goldorak]

I dunno...

I'm not sure if I believe that online multiplayer will enhance/save the sales numbers of SHIV. As someone posted earlier, only diehard-naval-sim-freaks will buy this type of game, and a true diehard-naval-sim-freak will buy SHIV regardless of online multiplayer or not.



You are mistaken, SH III was relative success mostly because of casual gamers buying the game.
Die hard fans are not enough to justify the total sales of SH III.
The sim as it came out wasn't a die hard naval simulation, of course the mods released afterwards increased the realism etc... but how many of the gaming populace actually used the mods ?
Only naval-die hard fans thats it.
In this day and age, if military simulations (of any kind) are to succeed in the marketplace then they have to cater to casual gamers, its like this and nothing you say is going to change the situation.
So some people are correct in assessing that multiplayer goes a long way to increase the visibility and long term success of a franchise.
You can rest assured that in 1 years time SH III will be forgotten within the casual gamers.
There just isn't enough to keep one interested so long, and dynamic campaign as good as it is can only take the confrontation so far.
For instance Falcon 4 success is not onyl due to its impressive dynamic campaign (much more impressive than SH III by the way) but because of its online capabilities.
Do you honestly think people would still be playing Falcon 4 after 7 years if there wasn't an online component ?

[Caseck]

In essence you're asking how popular a Destroyer sim would be in a sub forumn. What kind of answer can you possibly expect?

As far as multiplayer, how can you look for multiplay fans in what has evolved into a single player game? The same problem. You're "marketing" to the small niche of players who hang around in these forums, who are only a fraction of the total folks out there.

If DC had been done well it would have been a winner. It wasn't, and very early it got a reputation as a "problem child". Plus it wasn't released simultaneously with SH2, which pretty well sank it.

That whole release was problematic. There are tons of ship fans out there, but no game has recently catered to what surface combatants like--much less a multiplayer campaign combining both...

Don't get into the attitude of thinking you sub folks are the whole world... It's simply not true. It is just that until Dangerous Waters, nobody has made a product including a worthy ASW effort.

[Sheppard]

If DC had been done well it would have been a winner. It wasn't, and very early it got a reputation as a "problem child". Plus it wasn't released simultaneously with SH2, which pretty well sank it

No, to be exact, it sank both itself and SH2. Requiring both games to work with each other essentially crippled the games long before release.

[Cdre Gibs]

Thats why I would prefer a true NAVAL SIM/GAME, where its all under 1 roof, no addon no patch, just all the fruit from day 1. You can take a sub to sea, skipper a DD/DE, Command a BB or carrier, launch planes, lay mines, do recon-intel/specop/resupply missions. Play as Allied or Axis with any country that was in the war. On the Multiplayer side ALL unit types would be PCO ( Player Controled Objects) enabled - think a Naval only version of BF BUT with the benfits of the SHIII/IV engine with the campain as is and the globe as your play pen, now you would have to admit, it be damn FUN !

You guys are thinking to small - Sub sim v's DC sim. I'm after the LOT - WWII at Sea, nothing less, with all that entales that I can play in single mode or multi mode (online or lan) with both decent AI and the advantage of PCO's to engage. This is nothing new that hasn't been done to other type's of games before so its not like its impossible. UBI wants a winner, well the above would be a bloody good start !!!

[Furia]

Well definitely this sim needs a humman manned DD or escort.
I do not think this is so difficult to implement since it was done before already and this will give the whole sim a total new scope of possibilities.
SHIII have been a really good and inmersive Sim but the lack of real Multiplayer possibilities makes it limp.

Of course a full Naval Sim with Carriers, Planes, Battlecruisers and so would be good although I am afraid we will need a new generation of computers to have this.
However at this stage a Sub vs Escort the way SHII was done but with the SHIII concepts would surely makr a milestone for thsi sim.
My two cents

[Grom]

There is almost 14 000 totally registered users at this forum. The group of 31 persons is not representative group to talk for all.

Otherwise

You have to accept that in such proportions as example:
if 200 thousands ppl preffer single player
then 110 thousands preffer multiplayer.

You can say only 110 thousands or this number of ppl is really impresive and might is worth give them for multi. Because they are still our customers.

I see that you have never done a population sample before. I can also see that you will argue regardless of the actual results and findings. This renders any further discussion fruitless and without merit. Accordingly, I bow out and leave you gentlemen to your bar fight. I suggest that chairs and bottles make sufficient instruments of mayhem.
I see that You have problems with understanding what is wish of users. You try to show that DC2 is not needed because few persons voted in Your poll. Somehow Your forgot that many people didnt know about egzisting of this poll. Now take a look at this:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/4441005903/showpollresults/Y

3 times more players wish to have DC2 than SH4. 77% out of more than 200 users. Is that clear enough ?

[Takeda Shingen]

I see that You have problems with understanding what is wish of users. You try to show that DC2 is not needed because few persons voted in Your poll. Somehow Your forgot that many people didnt know about egzisting of this poll. Now take a look at this:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/4441005903/showpollresults/Y

3 times more players wish to have DC2 than SH4. 77% out of more than 200 users. Is that clear enough ?

:lol:

I forgot about this poll. Look's like it's been eating at you, though. Hope you feel vindicated.

[Razman23]

Whats so wrong with a DC/SH combo?

Pilot a DD on convoy duty from the states to England while fighting off the wolfpack sounds just as much fun as slipping a eel into a convoy.

Just my 2¢

[Egan]

While i am curious about SH4 (as opposed to Excited, I guess. I want to know how various things will be handled in it before i go to defcon 5,) a decent WW2 DD sim would have me ready to help play the development costs right now....

Whats so wrong with a DC/SH combo?

Pilot a DD on convoy duty from the states to England while fighting off the wolfpack sounds just as much fun as slipping a eel into a convoy.

I did this on several occasions on DC with mission I cooked up using Floater's KD program. I loved it. There is something quite excellent about watching Depth Charges doing their thing when you're the one throwing them out there. i Loved commanding my little Escort group (especially with the modded and playable Black Swan as your ride!. You would be sailing along on dark nights only for one of the merchies to go up in a ball of flame bringing on a crazy hunt for the culprit. ...

Actually, if you will excuse me I'm going to go look for my DC disk....I might be a while. :)

[Grom]

I forgot about this poll. Look's like it's been eating at you, though. Hope you feel vindicated.

Dont forget Your name it could eat at you. ;) mr. bla bla bla No hopes for ya this time ;)

[Dargo]

Maybe it is not needed that they build DC2

Hello,

Before ORP Orzel and ORP Grom projects I was doing project for SH3 called “SH3 Allies Conversion” It was spouse to give you control of Ally submarines instead of the German subs. Since I’m pro Ally and in general anti Axis kind of a guy it was logical to me that I have to change or at least try changing SH3 to Allies point of view. Since my parent’s heritage is Polish and I was born in USA and I never really done any mods for the Polish Community, I decided to do one for SH3 and for Poles in mind.

Of course Polish people are very meticulous and it wasn’t easy to fit in at first as my Polish isn’t that good but never the less I was accepted. Soon after when I was accepted I tried to gather some people with special skills to form the team and to complete this project “SH3 Allies Conversion”. However I couldn’t find any skilled mod people, for months I've tried to find them but to no avail. I was really starting to feel the frustration but then I said to myself, no there is no way I can do that myself. I told the Polish Community that I’m closing the doors for project “SH3 Allies Conversion”. The thing was that I knew how to do all this but it was an overwhelming task for one person. It was more of a pain and frustration than pleasure and fun modding.

SH3 from the get go was not designed to be mod friendly in mind. A lot of the work has to be done at hacking or hex-editing level not the mention 3d model creation and implementation. Sure the SH3 mod community is great but many of the tools created don’t do the work that I want or they’re not very precise at it.

Later I was contacted by Konrad a.k.a. Grom from Naval Base Polish Naval website. Konrad asked me to stay and told me there is one person who is doing ORP Orzel 3d model and could use my help I reluctantly agreed to come back, somewhat I was doubtful that there can be actually any help. Just as I was helping this person he had disappear and was never to be seen again just like ORP Orzel sub. However I decided to stay and try again pickup this heavy stone and see if I can get by implementation of a new 3d model into SH3. Again I was frustrated just of thinking how long it would take for me to create new 3d model and then add it etc. So I thought of it, I must cut the “red tape” and do it fast otherwise I may just as well quit altogether. Well, I figured since I’m one man team sort of like Rambo I decide to acquire existing 3d models freely available on the internet. I found ORP Jaskolka in virtual sailor and converted it from x. format to obj. format then started converting process back to SH3. It’s a lot faster than making new model myself and just as affective as I would have done it myself but with whole lot less time involved. However implementation is time consuming and can be very tedious work when doing it myself.

I don’t know what sort of skillful mod people you guys have here but I can tell you that you need to be a pro at modding games and I mean it a pro. If you can help bring hex-editing team, 3d modeling team, and texturing team we can make DC2 based on SH3 in say about 6 to 8 months.

The easiest way is to use existing u-boat’s 3d instruments and eventually later replace it with new DD views and instruments, DD watch tower etc. Also it is easier to convert sub sim model to DD sim model, because sub already has 2 physical sim models. One is surface sim model and second underwater sim model. So we just turn off underwater sim model leaving surface sim model. I’ve done it before with SH3 so it doesn’t take long to do all that. The real problem is implementation of new 3d models. It is so time consuming that to say that “it is boring” is an understatement. However we can use existing DD’s from SH3 and make them human controlled units. Now, you may have a question with regard to: can we have sub vs. dd or vice versa? Don’t know if it is possible technically two different sim models may work but haven’t tested it so don’t know. It may only be possible if one version of SH3 is original with sub sim model and the second with DD sim model. Technically it may work but…. Just can’t say for sure. One version will work for sure but two in combination don’t really know.

I have a forum dedicated to 2 projects: ORP Orzel & ORP Grom. You can write in English or Polish I understand both languages. As of now I have taken a break from modding SH3 and went to Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Star Wars Empire at War. At present time I’m testing mod official tools and servers for Pandemic’s Star Wars Battlefront 2.

So there you go, I’ve tried to make a long story short or did I?

PS. I can only spend about 2 hours or less modding time a day so…. It’s not much but I’m skilful and it makes up for the few hours that I can spend modding games.

Chris C

If your interested have the time and the skills mail me

Beta preview http://www.subclub.info/phpBB_subclub/viewtopic.php?t=14786&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Thanks.

[Dargo]

If you have any skills ,or even just a idea,on how to help us make the Destroyers playable in SH3 Sh3/Destroyer Command upgrade Forum. (http://www.subclub.info/phpBB_subclub/viewtopic.php?t=16757) drop in at the WPL forum and tell us what you know.If you would like to help..let us know also over there also.
We have a new forum for the upgrade,
There is work in progress,but any and all help is needed.

[FAdmiral]

An expansion could add player contolled DD's into SH3 if it was ever made. Just like the tanks were added to COD with the UO expansion. SH4 could have controllable surface escorts added in to get the DD vs. SUB experience. You don't need 2 complete games.
SH2 & DC were 2 complete stand-alone games but always had
problems when joined together for multiplayer. DC was not
very good singleplayer because the AI subs were never done
right. I loved to play DD vs. SUB in multiplayer but it was always
unpredictible as to when a player would just drop from the game.


JIM