Yeah, but roughly a third of all U-boats put to sea on their first patrol in the last year and a half of the war when putting to sea in a U-boat was suicide.

I just started my first career with RFB 1.24:rock:. Thanks for the great Mod to you and all who's work is included!!!
(The deck gun seems TOO weak now;) I had to empty AP and HE just to finish off a tanker that had already went down completely at the stern. Also, it took a lot of ammo to get the spot lights out at <200 yds, more then I remember B4).


Thanks again for your work!
(I use RUB 1.xx as well.)


Sorry, couldn't help it.



Anyway, I know if I'm dying a lot in any game, I don't usually feel depressed, I feel angry "That’s right, cheating is the only way YOU can win, you stupid f$@&%#! computer! I'll never play that stupid game again!":damn:.



Of course I keep coming back for more. After all, it’s probably just my subconscious forcing me to take a brake.

Even early in the war, mistakes cost u-boats and lives. If a man didn't make a mistake he survived. It also became easier for men to make mistakes as the war progressed.

The entire concept of whether or not the AI in any sim is "too tough" or "too weak" is subjective anyway... because no matter how it is set up... A player has to make a mistake to "die" and will "live" if he doesn't make a mistake.

We could debate/argue in circles using logic as well.

Doesn't mean we have to.

Its your thread showcasing your interpretations yet again. Take it wherever you please. One concept is as valid as any other as long as good intent is behind it.

I don't worry about it at the end of the day, just a game:yep:

RDP

It's just a game. At the top of the standard retail edition box it says 'The Best Selling Submarine Game Series Ever'. There's no mention of the word simulation. It's a game of strategy and tactics set in a WWII submarine.

Just enjoy it. :D

Every figging second of it i would say :smug:

NO!

I DEMAND REAL DEPTH CHARGES!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

(Puts on helmet and nomex fire suit.)

Subject? Computer Game. Genre? Simulation. How can I tell? Common Sense.
So you are both right, but Beery is more accurate. ;)

+ simulated systems in that sub = simulation.

Life always ends with death.
 

Life always ends with death.

Well, from what I've seen uptil now it was a walk in the park in the stock game. Note that only because subs didn't get sunk constantly iRL doesn't mean the IJN were made up of utter retards who couldn't decide going left or right. It might just mean that both sides were good at trying to kill each other, only that the sub skippers and their equipment and tactics were a little better in most encounters.

Also, by its nature the subs were at an advantage, having the element of surprise almost always on their side. Something which was the exact opposite for the U-Boats later in the war. And then, once the destroyer noted the sub (usually by the first torps going off), the sub was already going defensive (read: silent, deep, small etc), and I could imagine it's pretty hard to drop any accurate ashcans on a deep contact that might or might not be a whale farting. With active sonar, you might get better contact, but only vaguely in depth (afaik) and you will loose it a good while before the critical moment for the drop comes, at which point it will have surely left datum.

This is why the subs weren't sunk left and right. But not because the escorts didn't even try or drop ashcans at the other side of the convoy.

Like another poster said on page one - he was surprised how often they got depth charged but were not destroyed. I got the same impression from reading the accounts. They were detected, they were engaged, but for above reasons hard to get dropped on accurately enough, and then often managed to escape in the turmoil or when some window of opportunity arose, not seldomly only after several hours. This is the rule from the account's I've seen, not the exception. They might not have gone down as often as the U-Boat enemy brethren (and they wouldn't have either had they not been at such a technology disadvantage and their code cracked) but they were surely engaged in a more regular, aggressive and visceral fashion than SHIV stock would have you believe.
If you're saying all this becomes different with the higher level AI, well then that tells me that the low level AI needs to be scrapped alltogether since it seems to be all too frequent at least in early war and I don't know of any mentally retarded IJN officers in command of a fighting ship even during that war period.
And this is something which for example Kakemann did with his Improved Escorts Mod.

To the left side is REALISTIC
To the right side is FUN
All gamers are somewhere in between
Debates on where you fall are seemingly endless
I'm happy its just a game cause I know I would NOT be happy fighting
in a real WW2 sub :up:

JIM

Well death isn't just in video games, it is also in books, tv, personal life, etc... Just watch the news for 5 minutes and somewhere between them talking about Paris Hilton you will find a little death thrown in.

It is just a part of every day life so it isn't hard to see why it is not so terrible to see in a game, where at least it isn't real.

Now if you will excuse me I am going to go kill some back stabbing japs! (in SHIV of course ;))

It isn't a race-car game...um, simulation!:p

The game, or is it a sim, rewards daring-do and sinking ships, bringing your crew and your boat back doesn't count for much. In the game you are encouraged to annihilate convoys, to reload in action and shoot torpedoes as fast as you can reload. Then you surface and sink the remainder with your guns. IRL if you survived, you would be severely censured by CINCPAC for needlessly endangering your crew and your boat. (I guess if you sank significant tonnage that way, you would get the Medal of Honor and then kicked upstairs into a safe job where you can't get anybody else killed.)

The game encourages you to risk all, and it's easy to do because, if the worst comes to the worst, you can just start a new career. Again we come back to "whatever floats your submarine", but I personally think the Errol Flynns should be catered for in single patrols, while the career game should be rewarding survival more. I find great satisfaction in surviving a career with most of my original crew and a respectable tonnage total. I miss the SH3 Commander's career end story, which rounded off a war career nicely.

That said, if SH4 was any good my short wave radio would crackle in a thunderstorm, I mean just where is the realism?

The deck guns in RFB have been balanced to give similar results as historical reports of deck gun use on small to medium freighters (which is what they were usually used on). Smaller vessels (fishing boats, junks and sampans) have had their damage models adjusted in RFB so that they are sunk with a similar number of shots as were used historically to sink them. If the deck guns seem too weak then historically they were that weak.