SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - SH5 Interview conclusions

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 5 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=244)

- - SH5 Interview conclusions (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160467)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The General (Post 1241495)

Did a U-boat sink any major military targets after May 1943?

I'm struggling to understand your point - it was never U-boat doctrine to focus on sinking warships - they were opportunity targets. The aim was to sink supplies to cripple the war cause in Britain.

However, a quick Google will show that many smaller warships (Destroyers, Frigates and the like) were indeed sunk after May 1943.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JScones (Post 1241507)

You proceed from the false assumption that I have 'a point' or an agenda. I am literally asking a question. Please forgive my ignorance.

What major military targets were sunk by U-boats before May 1943?

You know what Silent Hunter V is reminding me of, in comparison to the two previous titles?

The Oregon Trail series.

Don't laugh. In Oregon Trail II, the player could choose to travel anytime between 1840 and 1860, choose from four different starting and ending locations, and travel just about every westwards trail emigrants used in real life. You could choose one of 25 different professions before hitting the trail, and could choose up to five skills for your character. As a result, the replay trail was ridiculously high. The graphics weren't that great, and the voice acting was pretty corny, but I must have played that thing for 1,000 hours.

Oregon Trail III came out a couple years later. You could only travel one trail, and only in 1848, and there were only about six starting professions. The developers put all of their effort into prettier graphics, mini-games, and FMV actors...and I only played it through twice before shelving it.

I feel like history is repeating itself. :damn:

Always enjoyed playing the Bimark support mission. This new version may give us the ability once again and this time perhaps to save the ship from sinking..... A small change in history can lead to huge consquences....

I look forward to it... Set the coordinates and the date and be there for the onslought....:yeah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The General (Post 1241529)

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snestorm (Post 1241555)

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

What does a question about U-boats in WWII have to do with a Subsim about U-boats in WWII, on a website dedicated to Subsims? Wow, what a great question! Did you think of that yourself?

there's a big problem here. The devs seem to be relying on the modding community to make SHV a great game.

Don't get me wrong. I love GWX. But if youre developing a game, you should aspire to make it great, not mediocre and then expect the modding community to fix it for you.

The devs just seem to have the wrong mentality here.

SHIII was full of bugs on release. SHIV was full of bugs on release. SHV...?

the fact that only the 1st few years of the war isnt moddeled aint that much of a surprise. in the current gaming climate its the norm to release games 1/2 or 3/4 complete and then release and charge for dlc. do i agree with it? hell no, but if the content is good and the price is right then il buy it for sure.

and if the dlc for sh5 will fund dev time to provide a more rich campaign of the later years then im all for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aura (Post 1241862)

i think you are pointing to the wrong persons, the devs are like us, they love and play subsims themselves and want to give us a finished, complete, fully working game but they take orders from the bosses/suits and when you have to work with a limited budget and only "x" amount of time to work on it you just try and do the best you can under those limitations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JScones (Post 1241488)

Stats from April 1943 to April 1945...

[194304] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 287,137 tons of Allied shipping
[194305] Monthly losses: 41 U-boats for 237,182 tons of Allied shipping
[194306] Monthly losses: 17 U-boats for 76,090 tons of Allied shipping
[194307] Monthly losses: 37 U-boats for 237,777 tons of Allied shipping
[194308] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 92,443 tons of Allied shipping
[194309] Monthly losses: 9 U-boats for 98,852 tons of Allied shipping
[194310] Monthly losses: 26 U-boats for 91,295 tons of Allied shipping
[194311] Monthly losses: 19 U-boats for 30,726 tons of Allied shipping
[194312] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 55,794 tons of Allied shipping
[194401] Monthly losses: 15 U-boats for 74,816 tons of Allied shipping
[194402] Monthly losses: 20 U-boats for 66,043 tons of Allied shipping
[194403] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 94,721 tons of Allied shipping
[194404] Monthly losses: 21 U-boats for 62,149 tons of Allied shipping
[194405] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 24,423 tons of Allied shipping
[194406] Monthly losses: 25 U-boats for 57,406 tons of Allied shipping
[194407] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 61,395 tons of Allied shipping
[194408] Monthly losses: 34 U-boats for 91,454 tons of Allied shipping
[194409] Monthly losses: 23 U-boats for 50,790 tons of Allied shipping
[194410] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 1,659 tons of Allied shipping
[194411] Monthly losses: 8 U-boats for 25,193 tons of Allied shipping
[194412] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 53,268 tons of Allied shipping
[194501] Monthly losses: 12 U-boats for 67,410 tons of Allied shipping
[194502] Monthly losses: 22 U-boats for 75,911 tons of Allied shipping
[194503] Monthly losses: 34 U-boat for 65,901 tons of Allied shipping
[194504] Monthly losses: 57 U-boats for 65,532 tons of Allied shipping

Total: 563 U-boats for 2,135,367 tons of Allied shipping

Wow, I guess the Devs are right. Hardly anything of worth happened at all. :shifty: