That true enough ...:yep: ...but there is another consideration.

Not everybody has the time ( or maybe patience) to invest 3-4 hours a days sailing around "empty" oceans....and for these, that can get just as boring as just as quickly.

It seems it is either feast or famine with no in between level.

So I guess that each player has to determine what his own tolerance level for satisfying gameplay is.

My own preference is lots of targets but that doesn't mean I have to chase down and sink every single one I encounter. I like to choose my targets carefully then invest my quality game time in setting up that perfect approach,solution, and shot. Plus I don't conserve my torpedoes either. When I get that certain choice target in the crosshairs I loose evey tube at him. This tends to limit my tonnage too even in oceans filled with opportunities.

In other words....its what floats your boat that counts...not what someone else thinks about your choices.

Good point, and as much as I go on about 'realism' and 'feel', there are also people who like a subject and just want to play a game about it.

But when they ask "what do you think?", my two cents is goin' in.:sunny:

Just to be clear, I didnt say all 8 patrols were harbour raids.. and I wouldnt even have gone if it werent the mission orders..

As a fact, the missions I accomplished til now were as follows:
Patrol East China sea (where I learned how to conserve fuel for the 1st time)

Patrol off Honshu Island (this point, working out manual targeting, reading forums for bug reports)

Insert Agent at Kyushu (found out how to not crush the life-raft on departure)

Patrol off Palau Islands (started getting a handle on things, picking targets, shooting planes)

Patrol off Marianna Islands (got diverted here from previous ongoing mission, more mileage, had to think about how the game works with fuel, refits etc, got silver star for patrolling)

Photo Recon Phillipines, Manilla harbour (1st harbour mission, didnt know what to expect, was a night time, couldnt find the photo button at first, got in & out quick)

Patrol Marshall Islands (by now, basics under control, did some long distance torpedo shots)

Photo Recon Tokyo harbour (really took the time to spend all ammo no matter what.. testing limits)

I got plenty of wounded medals, medals of valor, patrol service ribbons etc.. over these missions. Promoted and awarded men many times.. but this last mission, my deck gun surprised the hell out of me with the guys I assigned to it reloading faster than I ever expereienced before, was a great asset to have.



Cruising a harbour such as my last mission, was difficult for a number of reasons, finding a place to hide when the sandy bottom and water over your head are barely seperated by the size of your ship from periscope to keel, depth charges land right next to you, repairs are being frantically made in high alert mode for so many hours your men fall asleep during repairs.. planes have the airspace covered constantly.. deck gunning certain targets you know you can get away with on the surface in order to maximize all your ammo usage, and I forgot to mention I did all this in daylight because otherwise it would be too easy. (Wanted to hit & run before I ran into something that I might not handle.. since 8 patrols, I still feel like a noobie)

Then to add to the fact, as I was leaving, the chokepoint of the harbour had an incoming massive enemy task force of carriers and kongos and DD's, and I was all out of ammo trying to sneak away. Hull damage at time of refit just before returning to pearl harbour was 67-70% if I rememeber, preventing any chance of deep dives for the entire trip home, so I carefully avoided all contacts on the trans-pacific return trip, which is painstaking when youre trying to make time.

So for those who werent there, its easy to say it was all too easy.. but every mission plays out differently.

I might be wrong but I think "crusing a harbor" is a term that means just going in on your own Iniative ,without formal orders, just out of pure personal curiosity.


I know I do it sometimes...but I always make sure to save first...;)

You gotta remember that IRL the skippers never knew for sure (100%, all the time) whether their targets actually did sink. Sometimes they would be able to observe it, but at others they'd be deep underwater evading escorts and would have no clue whether their target actually sank. In this game we have the benefit of perfect intelligence.

Sometimes even badly damaged ships that were claimed as kills were able to limp to safety.

I'm also assuming that the numbers on the scoreboard for the real-life skippers are not fictitious but drawn from historical data. If this is the case then the numbers would probably be the numbers assigned by JANAC which would be on the conservative side. Someone did some research some time ago and found that based on Japanese records the tonnage credited to some of the skippers should actually be higher.

Defining a term such as "Crusing a harbour" to mean anything other than the context it is used in, means ignoring the actuality of what was going on, but since everyone is free to read it anyway they like, just be prepared for confusion.

Reading the context along with the orders that sent me in, means what it means. Only two of the missions above sent me into harbours, and only on the 2nd harbour raid did I take advantage of the situation having felt a little more curious to totally destroy the place and see what happens.

Regardless, just as you were saying above for any person choosing any goal they want to go after for any type fun they want to have, I agree that whether or not any number of people are for or against getting involved in high or low tonnages, doesnt matter.. I see my initial campaign coming out what it is for what it is..

Secondly, since the real captains in real life, never had the opportunity to experience the "game" that we play, saying high tonnages are unrealistic is just as laughable as to expect their "low" tonnages to represent virtual reality, or equal the fun we can achieve, since we achieve it without all the real dangers as well as without all the real life time requirements, senses and feedback that comes with operating in a real world as compared to virtual reality..

So, only comparing apples and apples.. we players can achieve on computers what we are achieving, for very simple reasons that have to do with being on a computer and not a real sub.. real life captains still get all the respect for what they did, but they didnt have it as easy as we do in a game, so our numbers will not match given all the realism we are not forced to play through, with or without mods, nothing in a game will ever get close enough to real life without hitting the brick wall called, "real work, real duty, is not fun - or - my real life doesnt allow for a second "real life" - and I dont try to achieve 3-4 years in the navy over the course of a few play sessions sitting comfortably at home.. I am achieving what the computer allows us. If you want your low numbers to mean anything without being an apples to oranges comparison, you would have to get into a real boat or admit you're limiting yourself for other reasons which only appeal to some others, just as my current tack appeals to only some people. I may change later, but I predict that single player against AI only lasts so long regardless of how you mod it.

To me, low tonnages means you've had less success at arriving at targeting solutions and less opportunity to see all the variety of graphical excellence, including all types of weather, explosions, ship model damage states in all their various combinations together with lighting and time of day that this game offers.. whether by your own choices or not, it is what it is.

So, to be clear, I am thoroughly putting the game thru its paces to test it in every situation I can while in one campaign.. whether I continue to play other campaigns remains to be seen once I feel I have experienced enough - and may you all enjoy whatever speed you choose to do the same.

I feel sorry for the chap that tries to run a convoy past me in multiplayer. :)

(edit) Although not everyone recognizes different games for their strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities, I do have years of testing experience for game companies including naval units, and other military units where physics, damage modeling, and graphics all need detailed reports.. as well as having run several squads in other games where we excelled at crushing all targets that came before us.. I have a long history on SUBSIM (previous forums now deleted) and having been one of the very first and few successful multiplayer gaming hosts since the days of Destroyer Command linked with Silent Hunter II {2001-2002?} (Im on the donation list for supporting multiplay patch after UBI quit), as well as flew out to a Oregon convention for an alpha test of a multiplayer online naval game, where I was the only player to score a submarine to submarine kill with one of my torpedoes.. and won a nice graphic card as a prize- my credentials of playing simulations goes back further than some of todays forum subscribers were even born {computer degree 1980}.. but I still get sent to Davey Jones from time to time.. hehe.

Good point. I had forgotten ,but that wasn't always the case (perfect intelligence) in SHIII. Many times I had to hover in the area, within a certain range, in order to get a kill credit for a wounded target. A number of those ships just wouldn't go down unless precisely hit in certain locations. Not at all like these straw bottomed vessels in SHIV that will sink after a dirty look.

I'm not sure why this didn't carry over from SHIII. The uncertainty in SH III made me play the game differently.

:lol: ...go tell that to the guys playing SHIII with GWX...but be prepared to duck...

Hang around the forum more...... you'll catch on.

Made me think about Das Boot and how they're listening to the bulkheads collapsing ... wonder if it was possible to figure out if a ship sank in that way.

Oh btw on the incorrect damage reports - a story is cited in Enemy Coast Ahead (very interesting book as long as you bear in mind that it was written during the war and was also meant to function as propaganda).

This British bomber is doing a bombing run on some German factory. They drop the bomb load and the tail gunner reports that the entire factory had been more or less destroyed - chimneys collapsing and all. The pilot gets home and reports this to his superiors. The superiors are somewhat sceptical though because the bomb hatch had malfunctioned and the aircraft had all flown home with the entire bomb load :)

Ill presume that the bomber wasent alone and indeed the 'factory' may have well been destroyed.

Hard to believe though that the pilot dident notice the load dident drop. Typically the planes would bounce considerablly when the bombs were dropped. Also the plane would handle differently with and without load.

Not important. Sorry to divert. Carry on :rock:

Yeah when I re-read the book after playing IL2 that struck me as well. As I said it's propaganda - full of the rumors and stories that circulated among the British air crews, so I don't take anything I read in it too seriously.

According to the descriptions of how the air raids were conducted (and I think those are pretty accurate) they could have observed their own bombs during the first years of the war.

Perhaps the air crew was simply green?

Did British bomber training involve practice runs with full loads of ordnance, whether real or dummy? Or did they tend to drop one dummy bomb at a time, just to get a feel for targeting?

If it's the latter (which I'd suspect, although I have no information,) they may simply have had no idea what actually dropping a full load does to a plane. Add other planes to the raid hitting the factory, mix in general inexperience, and Bob's your uncle.

Not to get off topic, but one mission I just had, two bombers flew over me, dropped their bombs just as I was about to bring my twin 20mm gunsights onto one of them, and before I could fire a single shell, they promptly blew themselves up saving my ammo. One bomb hit the other plane in midair.. I swear!

No need to duck, I've played against AI off and on again, and then off again and so forth for years.. there is something more challenging coming from beyond your visual limits at the moment.. for those who want a change of pace, from playing highly accurate physics and damage model naval sim for solo play, into something for massive online play.. two companies which I am involved with to varying degrees for over the past 7 years.. and each is of course different in their level of approach.. but I'm hopeful we can toss out these limited 4-player arena style scenarios sometime in my near future.. for several different competing navies manned by multiple crew members, all of which are live players that can switch stations, in a WWII theme setting, while player operated pilots run off carriers, etc.. on a 24 hour server operating and maintaining valuable supplies tracking (ships sinking causes your fleet and pilots to have less ammo or fuel later on)..

Sound exciting? Would you pay to play? Would you invest? I know I have, and I continue to monitor progress on close level of contact with the developers.

But why get off topic? This thread is all about tonnages in SH4, right?

You can mod AI to be many levels of predictable.. from unintelligent straightline runners, to wildly superhuman crazy course steering manuevers.. but it's all too predictable too often when you come to your end.. and I realize some people will take that to mean they can play for a lifetime before they figure it out and get tired of it.. exceptions to every rule as you know.. If you just look to new stories that are becoming all too often repeated these days - ("internet users addicted to online more & more etc") it goes to show what can happen with current levels of gameplay, and yet when something better eventually comes along, will government decide we are all diseased and require forced medication and time outs from the computer for failing to show up to work or school..? It's closer to already happening than you think.. Will that "something better" in gameplay be AI? Yes, partially, for a long time to come, but as the saying goes.. Wait! there's more!. I think player to player virtual reality has yet to reach it's peak of attraction, especially tied into ever more difficult sims, rather than brainless shooters. Sims with scalable difficulty settings to attract masses and also allow for experts to actually have better control, more choices than automated noob levels, and feel challenged within the same arena.. seems like a holy grail.. but that was some conspiracy movie, wasnt it?.. lol

Like many others have noted in these many threads, a good naval game is too often limited by publishers pushing limits onto developers.. but there's something in the works that is working past those previous blockades.

Now, who was it these past few months, that posted something like a million or more tons, and still counting?

Oh I believe you seen it before a couple of times.

What I want to know is how does a Mitsubishi AM6 Zero sling 4 bombs under their wings :88)

Don't cha just love it when that happens?...makes you wantta sing I Believe In Miracles...well..almost...