We don't know, so right now it is all speculation.

I suspect that rather than going the all-in hardcore route of Steel Beasts, we're more likely to see a modular route that many other developers are taking, which honestly I would encourage. I.e. at first we only get a very basic core simulation, perhaps even one unit type - think new 688 game. Then if things go on, further function is added via add-on packs, DLC, additional sequels and what have you. I hope that if a title is coming, it's focused and functional, without feature creep eating up resources, so that it can be praised for what it is, and then developed in further installments and add-ons later for those who want more. I would much rather operate one very polished unit than 12 semi-finished and inconsistent ones.

No. If they make a good enough piece of software people will be willing to pay a good price for it. They need to earn the right to ask a lot for a sim, not be handed a large sum of cash so they can make another buggy half-assed game.

Go design a Ghost Recon mission in Igor and you'll see what a real editor is. Calling one crap editor better than another crap editor doesn't make it good.

Having played every Sonalysts simulation since 688(i), I think that the SCS editor is quite good, thank you. If I wanted to play Ghost Recon, I would probably have purchased it.

I don't think DW buggy or half-assed. You should spend some time in the SH series if you want to see some of that. Let's chill out on the negative vibes, okay?

All this talk about a sequel has gotten me nostalgic. Time to fire up the old Dangerous Waters. Installing now... ;)

At first: be realist and listen what players /modders need.

Walking around ship/sub and see/communicate with crew members is very nice but it consumes too much programmers workhours. At Silent Hunter 5 we can see that this is one big mistake.

Answer is very simple:
- put new graphic engine
- made game easiest for noobs (tutorials)
- integrate idea of best mods (RA, Lwami)
- made game more moddable (scripts like at SH5)
- delete bugs or mistakes known at DW,
- use famous solutions at SH / BS series
- support for adding other 3D models by modders

Want to sink Nimitz with my Kilo!
:rock:

IGOR is about 5x better than the DW mission editor. It could be better, but DW's editor is badly lacking in functionality.

I would like a "Timeline" feature in the mission editor, something to show you all the times your triggers will fire at on one screen.

Oh and anyone want to know why there will never be a Russian ASW aircraft in DW...

This is why!
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/3...toid004.th.jpg

:O::O::O:

Umm they only needs to be abstracted to make them believable with realistic performance. :DL

Fleet Command/DW, whatever. The big thing for me would be a dynamic campaign.

I don't understand why this game shouldn't based at IIWW? From SH2/DC we have not similar game like it. Whole SH series focused on submarines. Battlestations focused at 'arcade/fun' mode. SH2/DC was not submarine playing only but searching/destroing sub and epic naval battles between all class naval units. What is wrong with it?

At this thread were many non-classical propositions like chineese warships, indian or pakistan... this is this same think which have SH2/DC: different nations to play. I want to play US units vs. US - which game allows it?

What is difference between cold war and IWW? We have this same idea: search and destroy your enemy - no difference excluded better weapon and better sensors. We have no sim with sub playing with DC playing and other heavier units - only at mods for SH3/SH4 (Warship mod, TWSM) - it is for me big chance for new game. At BS we have aiming to other units... but where is fine art of manual range calculation, target course and speed, and firing by main or secondary guns?
So, in conclusion, IIWW is this same game as 'cold war' with worse sensors (max range is optic, first radars), worse non-guidance weapon and other units like CV, BB, CL...

Multiplayer:
I spent many hours with my friend to play SH2/DC. The fleet battles or hunting submarines are very impressive: ships still are maneouvring so hit by gun or torpedoes are not easy. And SH playoers want it - by creation a naval mods for SH like warship mod or unfinished TWSM. Sim, not arcade game like BS.
Do you want OH Perry or Bismarck, RM Littorio, HMS Hood, IJN Mushashi? DW forgot about this differences: nations and units. Fortunatelly mods help it - at one DW game report I found info about french Amethyste.
Good sounds!

Graphics:
Many producers require hi-end machines. But now at the market are: low-end machines, notebooks, netbooks, tablets...
There are clients what want to buy a product if can play at his machines!!!
They are so stupid to see it? SH2/DC was a game where main time was spent at 2D map - 3D was only to manual aiming by gun - this same story with BS campaign - only map for tactics, 3D was for fun.
Harpoon was 2D map and famous playing. DW2 can repeat it.

Mods:
Ok, lets DW2 will be a 'cold war' sim.
My best idea is make a game much moddable - to put IIWW units, IIWW nations and low-end sensors to play IIWW scenarios at DW environment - with adding 3D model support to put new models, new units etc, etc.
Play cold war scenarios or IIWW with mods.
Play for fun!
:rock:

Several reasons.

1. This isn't a WWII game series.

2. Sonalysts makes most of it's money from military contracts. My personal bet is that they are contracted to produce a new military sim, and will also market it to the public with the sensitive areas removed like it was with Dangerous Waters.

Again, if you want a WWII sim, I think you're going to be disappointed. I think it is clear that any new SCS product would be a modern warfare simulator, just as you would suspect the Silent Hunter series would be a WWII game. I, and most of us in this part of the forum, would welcome that, since it has been almost 6 years since DW was released.

Let's also not forget something mentioned a couple of pages ago - SCS have quite a knack for modeling complex hydroacoustic environments and sensors, along with complex TMA underlying the torpedo targeting. Their talents would be wasted in a game world where acoustic sensors are crude and torpedo targeting relies on simple mechanical methods, as they were throughout WWII.

Conversely, they've never had expertise nor had a reason to get expertise in modeling naval gunnery (as the main method of fighting), which would underlie any WWII surface simulation (since the idea of controlling surface ships were mentioned). That's a whole different complex ball game and I can't see a reason why SCS, given what they do for a living, would really have any interest in accurately modeling that to a level of complexity needed to be a true simulation.

Well if SCS wanted to design something modular they could have done it with Dangerous Waters. The fact that they didn't even try to sell add-ons, because there was no market to speak off according to them, what makes you think this "abstract" market will suddenly appear for DW 2 (or Fleet Command 2) ?
No, if a DW 2 ever sees the light of day it will be just like DW, not mod friendly at all. And if they start chasing the SH 5 crowd well we can kiss good bye to our beloved simulator.

The quality has to be there. 200 $ is a lot to ask for, its a lot whatever way of rationalizing the issue you come up with. No, the good strategy is to design a good game that builds on the strengths of Dangerous Water. Make it a game that extends DW, and costs 60 $. And that already is a high enough price, but not so high that you automatically exclude 99% of your potential market.
And no, 200 hard core simmers paying 200 $ just won't do it.

You have to consider also that whatever game SCS come up with it will have to convince a lot of DW players to upgrade. And whatever you may think of the RA mod, it has definitely raised the bar as to what can achieved with DW. Putting out a 200 $ game is not the way to entice players to upgrade, even hard core players.

Go design a mission with the ARMA 2 editor and you'll see how crappy the Ghost Recon one is. :rotfl2: Don't compare apples to oranges.

Oh please, just because 98% of pc game developers tend to run with the money once the game is released, leaving the players with a half finished, bug ridden game doesn't in any way justify selling games for 200 $.
Boehemia Interactive is an excellent pc developer, they stand 100 % behind their games, they issue patches over patches and enhancements (all free) all over the game's lifetime. Thats how its supposed to be. And the game they sell, they sell for 60 $. No wonder they have good relations with the gamers.
So if SCS is commited to quality and support they only have to look at BI. Arma 2 is niche, and doesn't even exist for consoles.
So if BI can do it so can SCS.