To my mind thats a script very similair to how SH2 was eventually modded.

SH3-GWX has a more *dynamic* approach. Really rather well done I think. Ive just replayed the same patrol 3 times testing my modded version SH3 from the same start reference (save) and each time has been completly different - excellent since I like surprises! thats what I class/call dynamic!

Arclight I hear what your saying but thats a finite pinned approach no surprises!

**QUOTE** Faamecanic
I do NOT like how the current mission system puts the player into a narrow track and feel it totally destroys the immersiveness of an open game. General guidance (ala SH3 missions) ...
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=172155&page=2

I tend to think the same way

Arclight, it appears to me that you have no idea what the word "dynamic" means in regards to simulations. This is evidenced in the apparent oblivion that you consider something with the same objectives on each and every replay to be somehow "dynamic".

Falcon 4 had a truly dynamic campaign, as did AOTD, as did Commanche vs Hokum, etc., etc...heck, even Lucasarts' Their Finest Hour and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe had dynamic campaigns. SH5 does not, no matter how much cool-aid one drinks.

Dynamic means that not only does the 'outcome' change, but the objectives themselves change to match the needs of the campaign based on the outcome of the prior mission or missions (or "patrols"). Dynamic means that the player is not bound to a specific tactical situation to overcome a strategic challenge. Dynamic could describe how the ships and convoys that are not tied to the scripted patrols are spawned, but it does not even come close to describing the campaign itself. When you say that we can "ignore your orders and do just whatever you want"...that has nothing to do with the campaign, and at that point the player is just 'tooling around' doing nothing that advances the actual campaign beyond letting time pass. You cannot call that a "dynamic campaign".

Saying that having a different outcome somehow equates to "dynamic" shows how well the developers have numbed the expectations of the average consumer, and the attention deprived players who need their objectives force fed to them. I could use your definition to say that because I can choose to fire or not fire my torpedoes that virtually any campaign would be dynamic...since the outcome would be different. I could also use your definition to say that something as simple as winning or losing is dynamic in itself...since the 'outcome' of winning or losing is 'different'.

As I stated in an earlier thread, SH5 does some things exceptionally well...but calling the campaign anything close to "dynamic' is just misleading to people who do not know better. Ubisoft is to blame for setting that expectation...but considering the source, they are also the ones who billed this as the "most moddable" sub "simulator" ever made. Unfortunately, it is neither easily modded nor much of a true simulator. (it is very pretty, though!)




Lastly, calling me "ignorant" simply because I have a different opinion borders on a personal attack. Be thankful that I do not use my own personal "dynamic" option of contacting the Moderator and asking them to use their dynamic judgement to determine whether the "scripted" rules of this forum have been breached. I would rather just accept that we agree to disagree about our opinions of what dynamic means, without resorting to further namecalling or accusations of ignorance.

:nope:

''Dynamic means that not only does the 'outcome' change, but the objectives themselves change to match the needs of the campaign based on the outcome of the prior mission or missions (or "patrols"). '' So if i had orders to patrol the western approaches and i sank some ships then the future objectives should change , well they do .

Do what you must, i'm sure they apreciate Elanaiba being ridiculed at least as much as my remark.

I'm perfectly aware of what dynamic means. It seems to me some people just fail to recognize SH5 campaign as such. The single missions that are available; that's linear. The campaign is a far cry from that.

How dynaimc, now that's debatable.

Like I stated to Placoderm; it's a far cry from linear, closer to dynamic than linear, but it's debatable how dynamic. Bit of a subjective matter, but dynamic it is.

Really?

Wow...

Really?!?

Thats weird...'cause for me, every time I have played through the campaign (I'm on my 3rd time through as we speak) and I am sent to patrol the Western Approaches...and whether I sink "some" ships, or all the ships, or no ships at all...I get the exact same follow up missions that I had in the campaign before. Perhaps my installation is messed up, 'cause if you are getting different and completely unique follow-up missions that are not the same from one campaign to the next...then you are truly playing a totally different game than the one I have.




...Either that, or you did not understand the contextual cause and effect in my statement that you quoted. Nah, couldn't be...

:o

I've bolded the bit you chose to ignore Placoderm......

Placoderm, take it down a notch. You don't need to ridicule everyone who disagrees with you.

The Management

Regain your way sir! However provoked by hideous sounding out, i earnestly hope that they may not claim your attention. :stare: Good day.

Placoderm, take a chill pill... What you're saying makes complete sense and I agree, but there's a cloud of aggressive irony that doesn't belong in the picture :D

I'll give an example. I had to sink some warships for a mission, I managed to get a hydro contact on 2 DD's just outside of visual range. I kept tailing them trying to get their attention. Firing my deckgun didn't help. Finally I encountered a merchant. I slammed into with with my gun, not even caring to sink it, I just wanted for those 2 DDs 20 km away to come to the rescue and into my trap. No dice... they never came. I got bored and turned tail. A few minutes later I encountered 2 groups of 1 BB and 10 escorts per each. I crippled the first BB. The other escorts gave up the chase and left the BB alone. As I was finishing him, the second group came by. They sailed right next to the burning victim without a care in the world, until I sank that second BB. They searched for a while and then reformed a circle and went on their merry way... :hmmm:

I guess as always its about perceptions...mine I gues are just to historical and realism based.

Patrolling for a Tonnage war and right place right time targets such as task forces on oppertunity? Hooking up with wolfpacks for convoy battles lasting up to 3 days? plotting positions tracking contacts....

Or fighting destroyers and carriers in endless missions from BDU which well really didnt happen except at the arcade on the 10 cent slot machine 30 years ago!

How odd! Ah well such is life!

I was replying to Sobers' post, not Arclights.




Edit: Regardless, Takeda was correct and I need to tone it down a bit. My earlier comment to Elanaiba was intended as sarcasm, but came across more agressively than I intended. My following comments were no less sarcastic, but should have been a bit less intense. We all have opinions, and none are more valid than others. I am sure that Arclight, Sober, and Elanaiba all may share my interest in this genre, if not my frustration in this game itself. As such, it is best to just agree to disagree...and respect each others opinions.

Yeah you are right about the quote , although the message Arclight conveyed was the one you maybe missed. Either way that's what I get for posting when straight in from work (and not reading the thread properly) Sorry for any confusion

I wouldn't worry too much matey - we all have off days , Lord knows I've had a few. Difference is that you were able to take a step back and realise what was going on.

For what it's worth you've certainly gained my respect :salute:

If Dan' get 1€ everytime he has to say this, he would be the richest man in the whole world by now. :haha:

Nah, don't sweat it. You're a good guy and we're lucky to have you here. This was a communication issue. I've done much, much worse in my time here.