I'm curious about Sailor Steves comment about ww1 not being appropriate for Silent Hunter, if anything the restrictions regarding rules of engagement for the germans would add a layer thats missing from SHIII.

But I am totally convinced that the cold war is not the way to go for Silent Hunter, the game would be indistingishable from Dangrous Waters or Sub Command, and to be frank - the next version of that game will have the updateded graphics you all crave.

And I can't really see the point of a UK or other allies version of Silent Hunter. For the UK, there simply were not enough targets to make the game interesting. The only theater where the UK would have fought a US / Germany style campaign is the Pacific, and given the limitations for UK boats it probably better off as a mod or expansion pack.

No, Silent Hunter IV is either the atlantic in ww2, or some form of ww1 sim.

DAB

PS. What Victorian Submarines. The UK Holland One was launched in 2001, but commisioned in 2002 - (eg, after the Victorian era was over)

I didn't vote, because what I'd like to see isn't likely to happen.

I don't like seeing games in which the outcome is predetermined, i.e., play the Axis side, you eventually lose; play the Allied side, you're going to win if you survive. I also don't like to be tied to the existing submarine and weapon designs. In short, I'd love the game to be more flexible.

Let's say the player is in command of all submarine/U-Boat forces. He/she can decide upon R&D, strategies and tactics. Once your units have been built, you can take command of them, while the others are controlled by AI. For more strategic-minded players, the option could exist to sit back and orchestrate the battles from afar, giving orders to multiple boats, but not controlling an individual one.

This would probably be a programming nightmare, unless the game was strictly designed as a turn-based strategy game, unless someone develops a very user-friendly interface for developing 3D components.

Assuming that this isn't going to happen (as it probably wouldn't appeal to a wide enough audience to justify the effort), I'd vote for the Atlantic.

You´ve just invented a totally new genre: strategy! :rotfl:

Sorry mate, but we were talking about sub-simulations!
:yep:
Cheers, AS

None of the above. Let us see SHIV and it's aftermath first.

I'm glad they didn't listen to you when they made the original Silent Hunter.:p

Exactly. And while I know a lot of people are fans of the cold war/modern day sub sims, I like true to life historical campaigns and there hasn't really been any major sub warfare since WW2. That's what, in my mind, narrows it down to WW1 or WW2.

On the contrary, British subs had quite a lot of activity during the Second World War. They operated in the North Sea, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and also the farEastern waters.

In the North Sea, British subs intercepted German shipping from Norway (iron ore from northern Sweden etc) and also attemptyed to intercept German U-boats and keep the larger surface units in port, or intercept them as they made a break for the Atlantic.

In the Mediterranean, British subs had loads of targets on the main Afrika Korps supply line. General Fritz Bayerlein, Rommel's Chief of Staff, said: "we would have taken Alexandria and reached the Suez Canal if it had not been for the work of your submarines".

In the Far East, British subs operated against Japanese shipping from Sri Lanka and Australia.

I think a British campaign could be really interesting, as in addition to conventional operations, there was also numerous 'Cloak and Dagger' insertions in all theatres, and British submariners won 9 Victoria Crosses during the war. A British campaign also has the option of including Chariots or X-boats.

From Commander J.J. Tall, OBE, RN, Director of the RN Submarine Museum

"Unlike German and American submarines that mainly fought wide-ocean campaign, British submarines operated regularly in shallow water, densely populated with mines and defended by strong anti-submarine forces. The nature of these operations extracted a heavy price, and one in three submariners were killed. Despite these losses, the Service never lacked for volunteers, and stories of submarine exploits are legendary. Malcolm Wanklyn in Upholder, Tony Miers in Torbay, and Tubby Linton in Turbulent were VC winners and personified the skill and courage of all the crews. Clandestine operations figured largely in the tapestry of operations, with Alistair Mars's Unbroken being a leading exponent. 'Baldy' Hezlet's five hits out of eight torpedoes fired, in Trenchant when he sank Ashigara, will remain forever a world record. By the end of the war RN submarines had sunk or damaged by torpedo and gun two million tons of shipping, including 78 warships, 38 of which were submarines. In addition to the destruction of the enemy, submarines were tasked with surveillance and reconnaissance; cargo and troop carrying; mining; harbour penetration; air/sea rescue; and finally the vital task of training our own anti-submarine forces."





Can you tell I really want a British campaign :p This is a great thread as well!


Cheers,

Dan

Man, you made a believer out of me. That sounds like it'd make for a great game! :up:

I'm very familiar with the British experence of ww2. And despite what I posted above, I would love to see British submarines modeled.

But i'm also a realist, and I know that in order to buck the market forces and convince an American publisher to publish something that doesn't have an American protagonist (By the way, don't Americans find that really patronising?), you need to have one hell of a campaign experence. And whilst some British Subs had facinating campaigns, a considerable number of British Submarines had patrol after patrol where a distant sighting of a fishing boat was considered exciting.

Which is why I suggested an expansion pack. There are plenty of people here who want the challenge of playing a different type of campaign from a tonnage war. But there are also people here who would complain because they can't sink 50,000 tonnes per patrol. And (unfortunatly for those of us who play on 100% realism) they have to be accomidated by the publisher as well.

Aha, I have misunderstood you, DAB (funnily enough my initals :p). I'd agree with you that British subs may not be for everyone, and as an expansion pack, British subs would be brilliant if we could control the larger subs as well as Chariots and X-boats.

Personally, I prefer the look of the British subs to their German counterparts, and personally I would be able to immerse myself in the campaign more, but I can see that the majority of players may not.

Cheers,

Dan

What about a Hypothetical war between the US ang the UK in the 30's in the atlantic?

I think i wwi sim is good because its still relatively untouched and it would be nice to see a well done game in this area.

YES!!!

Very much sick of WW2 subs.Its all been done to death now.Its time to move on to something new instead of simply rehashing the same game again and again.Just like Nintendo and Mario..you can only play the same game so many times no matter what changes were made before it gets old and tiresome to even look at it.

After SHIV it's time to move on to another time period.Preferably that of WW1.

I would like to return to the Alantic. But in a Nuke Boat. :yep:

I personally think that the SH series - being the only major historical sub title at all - gets updated infrequently enough to keep it rotating between the Atlantic and the Pacific WWII, in part because a lot of features can still be added to this. There is constant potential to keep raising the bar, and not just with nicer-looking graphics. Just think about it, even if SHIV is out this coming year and SHV follows roughly the same timeline as SHIII-SHIV, then we can't expect a game until at least mid-2009.

Seriously, it's ridiculous to say people have had "too much of the Atlantic/too much of WWII". Since one is one game every few years too much?

If SH stays in its WWII niche, it will always have a name for itself - and more importantly, it will have the experience of previous SH titles behind it. Even if it's a new dev team, they still have a benchmark to live up to, material to work from, a set of features to improve. With a new setting, they will have to take risks and start from scratch.

I'd rather have a string of very good subsims on the same line than a possibility of a new setting with questionable prospects. You want innovation - fine - but SH stay SH. I think it's safe to say that a constantly-updated SH will not get old. And every time someone gets tired of WWII sub sims - there's a new fan coming in behind them. I think it's safe to say that SHIII has only gained fans by doing what it does well.

You might have a point there CW :yep: BUT ONLY AFTER SHIV :D :up: