And that's to compensate for the poor system.

All you have to do in Silent Hunter III is dive as deep as possible and stay there on Silent Running. I tried to make the Gibraltar Strait mission that shipped with the game difficult by making the player get jumped by four destroyers almost immediately after mission start. All you had to do still, with four destroyers on you, was to dive to the bottom and hug it until you were trough the Strait.

That's the reason the destroyers are given tactical atomic munitions to use in their depth charges: Because they suck at what they're doing.

Firstly, the destroyers are supposed to suck. It was virtually impossible at any time in WW2 to find a sub that had gone deep. I read in (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm) that "In the first few months of the war only 5 percent of all depth charge attacks were successful (note: this is the US Navy, so they're talking about 1942, not 1939). Normal combat conditions reduced that figure to 3 percent. In mid-1944, the USN was claiming an 8 percent kill rate with a single Hedgehog pattern. By the middle of 1945, that figure had risen to 10 percent.". In the game this means that if you get killed more than once in every 10 depth charge or hedgehog attacks where the enemy knows your location, the game is already too deadly. I don't know about you, but I get killed far more often than that.

Secondly, it may be that in the single missions, the game is unbalanced. The game was tweaked in version 1.4b to adjust for better play balance in the campaign game - NOT the single missions. When the patches were being made, the single missions were regarded - rightly or wrongly - as a secondary part of the game. Having said that, if you used the tactic you speak of in real life, chances are you'd be safe. The Gibraltar strait was fairly deep, so it should be fairly easy to negotiate it. In real life, 62 boats attempted the passage, only 9 were sunk. In the game that translates to getting through 5 out of every 6 times you try it. I've tried it twice and got sunk once. When you get through six times out of six, give me another shout. ;)

Thirdly, whether you can avoid detection depends on when in the war you're playing. If you're in 1939-40 the Allies have virtually no chance of finding you, but in 1944-45 you will find that if two destroyers find you, you'll die ten times out of ten.

You shouldn't just assume that 'destroyers suck' simply because they suck in one particular scenario or in one period of the war. This game is more complicated than that, and destroyers go through an evolution as the game progresses. Destroyers 'sucking' in 1939-40 is a FEATURE, not a flaw. Basically, in 1939 you should, on average, be able to survive 33 focused single pattern depth charge attacks - and, to the game's credit, it's not too far off. In 1945 you should be able to survive up to ten (and you should be able to survive two out of three engagements where numerous depth charges and hedgehogs are dropped - in my experience in the game it's virtually impossible to survive a single such engagement). In the game it's far more likely that you'll get killed after two or three single depth charge attacks - something that was unlikely in reality. A big part of the problem is that destroyers in the game don't lose track as easily as those in real life. Contrary to your assertion that the game's destroyers suck, according to official statistics, the fact is they don't suck enough, especially in 1943-45.

Again, the widely-held assumption that every U-boat patrol was full of deadly depth charge attacks is deeply flawed. Take the movie Das Boot for example. In the movie the boat was attacked several times by destroyers, it sustained damage from depth charge attacks and was finally sunk by an air raid. In the real patrol that the movie supposedly depicts, the boat was attacked only once, by an aircraft, and the attack failed to cause significant damage. This is the reality. Das Boot is an accurate portrayal of U-boat operations, but it is a highly condensed portrayal, and gives more of an overview of U-96's entire career, rather than that of a single patrol. The question is, are we after a movie's version of reality, or do we want a true simulation of U-boat warfare? I prefer the latter, because even if it's slower-paced, the tension is that much greater if I know that I have a realistic chance of career survival. When I have no chance, then the whole thing devolves into a tiresome test of endurance before the inevitable destruction of my boat.

Good job Beery. You expressed what I have experienced in SHIII and what I expect for SHIV. The Rock was feared as a heavily patrolled chokepoint, but not impassible. I think you will find the many very shallow harbors in the Pacific very challenging also. The inland Japanese convoys would thread very complex jump and dodge courses through the islands taking advantage of shallow water, night, moon out to sea and the complications islands and reefs made in the attempt to get a good firing solution.
-Pv-

in sh3 destroyers were too effective, from the right viewing angle you could se the DD's rudder moving exactly as you moved your meaning a great deal of AI cheating was going on.

that and the infinte supply of rapid fire depthcharges which were always set to the perfect depth.

What about my Solution?'

Wouldn't it Be The Best of all?

It really may work, but it is important to have both opitions working correctly.

I've been playing the original Silent Hunter recently, running patrol encounters at 60% realism (limited depth data, visability, and realistic charts off) and laughing at the schizophrenia of the escort AI. If you dive below a thermal layer (which don't seem to be implemented until after you get your bathythermograph) and jettison debris, the escorts, and every aircraft in the area, will gang up on the debris and depth charge it over and over again.

After a while I got bored and started shooting torpedoes at random. When the torpedoes exploded, the DDs would go chasing after the spot where it exploded and depth charge it. I fired three torpedoes, each in a different direction, and the escorts went nuts and chased after each explosion. Then I came up to periscope depth and released more debris. A passing Zero sighted it and crashed into it! :rotfl:

The escorts came back and I stayed at PD until they detected me. Then I dived back below the thermal layer, accelerated to ahead full, releasing debris everywhere. Again, the escorts ran around, DCing the debris. A second Zero roared in, and I heard a loud BAM! I came up to PD, looked around, and noticed that one of the destroyers was on fire! I dove back below the layer, and kept releasing debris until the escorts ran out of DCs and went away.

I dont think the problem is about the skill level of the hunters or their technolgy, it is:

1) Hunters give up WAY too easily as compared to RL

2) There is no strategic AI so that it gets hotter for you the longer you stay in an area

3) OUr subs are not difficult enough to handle while being depth charged. See below:


We all know that the damage modeling is not complete enough in the game. THere are all kinds of minor damage that we simply dont take (even very minor leaks) that are survivable, but make evasion more difficult. How would you like to maintain your depth with broken gauges, bent planes, jammed valves or a sudden change in dive angle because a charge went off over you? Or how about damage that makes your boat louder? (there are many kinds!)

And fixing ANY kind of damage basically means you can be heard better underwater.

Perhaps if the focus was put on fuller modeling of our boats, the hunters would pick up more sounds which would "encourage" them to stick around longer?

Any way you slice it, SOMTHING needs to be done to make evasion more of a challenge and more fun (but perhaps more of a "patrol ender" than a "life ender" when you do get seriously tagged).

By the way, have you EVER run out of battery or air in this game? GEtting held under for many hours and having a very scary experience was a common thing for submariners. It hardly ever happens in this game, although when it does you typically die in the end.

Trout

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: surviving in a SH3 U-boat is far MORE difficult than it was in real life. Nothing needs to be made harder for the sub except perhaps for aircraft attacks. Certainly, depth charge attacks are MORE deadly than they were in real life, and U-boats get killed by DDs FAR more easily in this game than in real life. I've posted stats on this elsewhere on this site (I'll repost them below if I can find them). I don't know what else I can do to prove that U-boats weren't as easy to kill as some players want them to be.

Here's the post I was referring to. What I did was take real life stats and figure out what the game should give the player if it was accurate in terms of survivability.

There is no way that the game comes near these sorts of statistics. I reckon that the game is at least twice as deadly as the above stats.

In response to Trout,

I assume you are talking about your experiences in SHIII compared to what you expect in SHIV.

Don't expect DD AI in SHIV to ALWAYS be more aggressive or lethal than SHIII. That would not be historically accurate. However due to the fact that 52 subs were lost in the Pac war and 5,200 submariners died, there should be times when you unexpectedly meet a lethal or lucky opponent.

Concerning the lack of hot zones due to sub activity, I have definitely seen evidence in SHIII that the AI does respond to attacks and sinkings where if I stuck around I would see aircraft and hunter patrols show up eventually. The ruling factor in SHIII appears to be spotting. If I was SEEN by any enemy (even if I shot them down or sunk) there would be follow-up patrols by the enemy. When this happens, I quietly leave the area or suffer unending attacks.

In the Pac the best hunting should be near ports, but they will also be heavily patrolled making them very dangerous.

Historically, 1.5 percent of the nation's naval manpower sinking one-half of the Japanese tonnage would indicate there will be a target-rich environment and the fleet boats will be tough to sink compared to the Germans. In addition, the Pac boats had the latest technology the Allies could produce (with the exception of the torps.)

How do you know that in SHIII there were no damage or noise effects that affected your chances of detection and being sunk?
Just because you didn't get a text message telling you "...the compressor is making too much noise sir..." doesn't mean the game logic did not account for some of these things. Remember when you selected Silent Running you elected to forsake repairs and the noise that made. That is indication SHIII likely had some logic in place for the effect of repair noise.

I think it's important in our speculations to avoid the these assumptions:
1) The game logic in SHIV will be unaltered ports of SHI or III.
2) SHIV will be like SHIII with different visuals and map.

I've seen no evidence these two are likely based on past releases.

What controls game development more than anything are:
Skill, size, and enthusiasm of the development team.
Time/Budget.
Current devel technology available.
Target consumer technology available.

Market pressures as in potential sales and purchaser requests are a relatively small part of the picture (except for the facets that contributed to the investment decisions) although SHIII worked hard at the last moment to include a requested feature. The dynamic campaign came close to not being there.

When programmers can make AI as smart as humans, it's time for them to stop creating games and switch to creating millennium man robots. They'll make a lot more money. Games that cannot be won by humans playing at the highest reality level will not be well-received by the majority of gamers. Each person has their own challenge assessment. Some think the SHIII at highest is too hard, some too easy. For me, I can no longer spend 50 hours a week gaming.

What I CAN expect from past releases:
1) Game play will be more or less historically pertinent to the theater and time period.
2) Graphics will exceed expectations and game logic will take a measurable back seat.
3) There will be notable bugs at release that will be patched after sales have begun and the sales are positive enough to warrant the added investment.

Point two is unfortunately due to human behavior. Many people will buy and play a game once or twice even if they're uninterested if the graphic representation wowed them. Some people will play a flawed game for the graphics only. I call these people TV Gamers.
Lots of eye movement, little cognitive activity.
-Pv-

I'm not making predictions about Sh4, I'm simply saying that in SH3, the events that typically happen after you have made your attack do not play out with the same level of excitement or challenge as in other sub sims.

Evasion, damage control and survival should be the climax of a sub battle. In SH3 I simply dive, go to silent running, and escape. No near misses, no flickering lights, no minor damage, and certainly no being held underwater for hours at a time.

Most accounts I have read about boats being depth charged were completely unlike what I've experienced in the game. As Beery said, most sub commanders survived, (but most, I would add, could tell hair raising stories about being depth charged)

I cannot, and I've been playing a few hours a week for over a year now, on the highest difficulty level.

I submit that the damage system in SH4 could use far more attention than it got in SH3. We need many more kinds of minor damage that can create challenges for the commander, and we also need longer DC attacks.

Trout

"Don't expect DD AI in SHIV to ALWAYS be more aggressive or lethal than SHIII. That would not be historically accurate"

PV,

I forgot to respond to these points:

If aggressive means tenatious, then yes, it would be more historically accurate to have longer ASW battles. Accounts I've read from both theatres indicate that destroyers and other sub hunters simply don't bugger off that quickly.

As to lethality, I agree with Beery that we don't need attacks to be more lethal. I simply feel they should last longer and do more damage.

Trout

As to the amount of time destroyers spend hunting you in SHIII, part of it seems to be the routine that governs time spent away from the convoy. A lone destroyer or hunter/killer group should stay with you until they are sure you're dead or have lost contact for at least an hour. The ones tied to escort duty don't have that luxury. In real life spending too long hunting for one submarine could allow others in the area to attack too easily. The escorts have a time limit between when they lose contact with you and when they return to their escor duties. After all, keeping the enemy away from the convoy is as good as killing him, if he's too far behind to resume his attack.

One of the problems with SHI was that the destroyers could be too tenacious.

lasting longer and doing more damage isnt more lethal in you book???

SH4 does not need to be harder then SH3, but the way in which ASW takesplace should evolve a bit. make DD's a bit more conservative with depth charges (and a bit more inaccurate) but a bit more persistant and lee likely to give up.

difficulty stays the same but realism improves.

This reflects reality. In reality U-boats most often evaded their attackers without much problem. Are you saying you NEVER get near misses? I often get them. Heck, I often get killed in the game - more often than real commanders did. That means I'm experiencing MORE depth charge attacks - or at least more deadly ones.

What period are you playing in? You have to realise that the game gives a very realistic simulation, and it changes as the war progresses. If you've only played in 1939-41 then your experience is true to life. Very few German U-boats were destroyed in this period. Try later in the war and you'll have more than your share of nail-biting times. One thing to note though, is that what real U-boat men found deeply frightening, you might see as no big deal. Their lives were on the line, yours isn't.

It depends on what's attacking you. For hunter-killer groups I'd have to agree with you, but these groups were rarely encountered. For convoy escorts I think the game's DC attacks are long enough. The problem is, SH3 doesn't make a distinction. It goes for a generic 'one size fits all' approach. Anyway, in reality commanders had their LI attend to damage control. The commander directed the boat. I don't think that minor damage would create challenges for the commander in the way you suggest.

The big problem with reading anecdotal accounts is that they are part of the entertainment industry. Boring accounts simply don't get published. If you were a publisher, would you publish accounts of a 5 minute engagement where the sub easily avoided depth charges, or would you publish the ones where it was a 12 hour life and death struggle? Anecdotal evidence is often misleading. It leads people to believe that all depth charge attacks were long, drawn out, deadly duels. That simply wasn't the case.

It's the same with gun camera footage. Have you ever seen gun camera footage where a pilot put hundreds of rounds of ammo into an enemy plane to no effect? I haven't. Yet these types of things happened most of the time. But for a TV documentary they need gun camera footage where something explodes or breaks up after a few seconds. This is why air combat simulations give such a poor representation of air combat - the people making the sim assume that infotainment of the sort we get on The Military Channel represents real data and hard fact. So we get sims where air combat lasts the same amount of time as a two-second snippet of gun camera footage from an air war documentary (yes, I'm talking about IL-2), or we get sub sims where every depth charge engagement is an endurance test. This is why campaigns in most air combat and sub combat sims have been impossible to survive - in real life half of WW2 fighter pilots survived the war, and 3/4 of U-boat commanders survived the war, but in every air combat and sub sim I've ever played it's virtually impossible to survive for more than a few weeks. Modern media mislead us because they need sound and visual bytes - a couple of seconds of film that shows a gripping story, or a sentence that grossly misleads the viewer about casualty rates in WWI air combat: who hasn't heard the sentence "The life expectancy of a pilot in WW1 was two weeks"? It's completely false - the true life expectancy was between one and two years. Documentaries often use the life expectancy for untrained pilots thrown into the breech during the worst month of the war, and 'accidentally' use this statistic as if it applies to the whole conflict.

In other words, documentaries and anecdotal evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt. They're entertaining, and single experiences can even be true in themselves, but unless you have the whole context it's just not realistic to rely on anecdotal evidence when you need to find data relating to the entire experience (such as you need when building a simulation). One U-boat's exceptional experiences never equate to the entire experience of the U-boat war. Reality is a lot more mundane than anecdotes would have you believe.

[/quote] Reality is a lot more mundane.[/quote]

And that is exactly why most of us play games
BUT we still want them to be REAL SIMULATIONS !!!


JIM

My point was that if someone's facing death every day, then facing it only once a week would be more mundane, but I'm sure whatever he's doing when he's facing that more mundane threat would still make a good simulation. There would be no need to make it into an arcade game to make it more exciting, as I think a realistic simulation of facing death once a week would be exciting enough.

I have to agree...drives home the old maxim that war is usually 90 percent boredom and 10 percent sheer terror.

Thanks a huge deal for your reply, Beery, that was really educational :know: .

Exactly! Ever played TIE Fighter (or any X-Wing series game)? You take damage to engines, flight control, etc., but when you get hit, you also risk that a gauge or screen dies on you. You can really make it just fine without knowing how much energy your laser cannons have, but once your sensor screens shatter, you're blind (you can't make do with visual info only in that game).

Silent Hunter IV should be like that. They need to implement supplies (in this context spare parts), too, so that you can't just keep repairing everything without re-supplying.