Heh, very good, and quite true.

:har::up:

Who knew the "A" in Type VIIA stood for "Arcade"!

JCC

Sheer awesomeness, :salute:

:har:

I needed this laugh while waiting for Ubi server to return....

just epic :D

Funny one but I do not agree with the conclusion.

OK - having spent a couple of hours playing SH5 this weekend, let me rebut this one.

Kapitan: Herr Admiral - I cannot accept a Sh5 class sub.

Donitz: Why not, Kapitan?

Kapitan: Admiral, in real life I can speak to my crew while I perform specific functions. In a SH3 class sub, some control liberties were taken that allow me to replicate the same thing. For example, I am running at periscope depth with a destroyer heading it, bearing 240 degrees. My course is currently dead north. In SH3, I can order a heading change to 60 degrees, while ordering a dive to 60 meter and still keep an eye on my target until we pass below 16 meters. In SH5, no such ability exists. I can dive, but I must play the role of Chief, watching and ordering a leveling off at the depth desired.

Donitz: I see, it would be inappropriate for you to take on the tasks of an enlisted sailor.

Kapitan: Forgive me Admiral, but that is not all. I must also take over the helm, because a real captain can order a specific heading, but in an SH5 sub, this cannot be done unless I use the scope to point out the desired course. Given the need to use the scope for combat observation and awareness, the need to "drive" the sub with it is hardly realistic. Nor do I have any desire to manually steer the boat itself, having to watch among everything else, the ships heading. After all, in real life, as in SH3 class vessels, the helmsman understood a compass heading.

Donitz: But you get to talk to your crew now.

Kapitan: Yes sir, I do, but I am out here to fight a war, not worry about banjo strings or whatever for the cook. Nor do I even want to consider his "special soup". Would you want any of his soup, herr Admiral?

Donitz: I shall reconsider the assignment. Once SH5 class vessels allow a captain to realistically simulate a combat uboat as they should, with situational awareness taking priority over "sit here and do the helmsman and planesman's job" - we will discuss this again.

Kapitan: Jahowl, Admiral!

Another good reading:
If real life were like SH5 Pt1

:03:

Captain Haplo is right. The OP misses the point especially with the 'warping to stations' thing. Is this a submarine combat simulation or Discovery channel exhibit?

How about scratching the combat and making it a submarine simulation with combat included, eh?

There is more to immerse oneself in a boat but mere fighting =)

Yeah, like smoking a cigarrete at the bridge while watching the waves and the sunrise/sunset
oh whait, I did that in SH3 and 4 also
nevermind :oops:

In SH5, you can order a course change from any station by bringing up the TAImap and entering a new course or dragging an existing waypoint to the desired course. In SH3, you click on a dial at the bottom of the screen.

In the same way, to set depth, you click on the bar at the bottom left of the screen. In SH3, you click a dial on the bottom right of the screen.

Is one more realistic than another? You can do everything with the SH5 interface that you can do with the SH3 interface.

my original point is that you see many threads where posters are lambasting SH5 as being dumbed down or "arkadey". From where I am sitting, most of these criticisms boil down to the fact that they do not like the SH5 interface, but that is matter of personal preference, not a matter of "realism".

Does that mean the "B" in Type VIIB stands for "Beta"?

Wagner recently was wondering whether Dönitz is unaware of the existence or purpose of speaking tubes and concept of order relaying, and was seen joking at the bar about SH5 being a realistic bipedal simulation. From Wagners perspective Doenitz assessment is somewhat flawed, when stating the purpose of a U-Boat simulation is to highlight the skippers biomechanical activities.

Wagner agrees that the "human touch" could be a nice addition, if low profile, optional, and first and foremost working (~ making sense), not unnecessarily encumbering the game. Wagner doesn't like, nor understand, the concept of "powerups"; connecting boat and weapon specifications to crew morale and distributed "Skillpoints". Wagner thinks that's a feature commonly found in action titles. Instead of allocating time& money to the implementation of these, he would have rather seen those resources go into engine optimisation and increased system depth. When asked what he expects from a serious game, a submarine simulation, he refers to subject books, i.e.:
http://www.amazon.com/Submarine-desi.../dp/3763701249

In his opinion, the purpose of a U-Boat simulation is to simulate the U-Boat, its equiment and the virtual environment it is operating in and interacting with. He thinks good graphics and crew interaction do help realism, but are no substitute for simulation.