You misunderstand. I'm not referring to the objectives handed down by the HQ or the mentality of the captains. I'm referring to the absolute objectives set down by the game, i.e. Sink xxxxx tons of enemy shipping or the mission is failed and you have to repeat it.

In those terms the only objective is to stay alive.

I'm coming to the same conclusion as well. I'm trying to get a good hold on what makes a good Silent Hunter 5 targeting interface; what is too automated vs. what is too clinical vs. what is too "off the hip."

I'm aware that was normal procedure, the "periscope dancing partner" but if you look at SH4's periscope the stadimeter whizwheel is on both sides back and front.

Wait, big deal! The ocular view was partitioned such that the bearing was visible through the eyepiece? And stadimeter result?


---

Having the AoB update with the periscope bearing (like SH4's EasyAOB and I believe real life German U-boat) effectively makes the AoB wheel a "target course wheel." In other words, when you turn the periscope the AoB changes such that the target course doesn't change.

Watch http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim#p/u/5/t3sOA-UWk74 at 1:25, 2:50. Notice how the AoB changes as the periscope is moved. I think that when "Bearing: Follow my Periscope" mode is on, AoB updates in this way. This way Fast90 and similar "Auto AoB compensation" works just fine.

You say that if you don't meet objective X you "fail" and have to retry the mission/campaign segment? Are you sure? Maybe it is a branching question. Play Campaign A, if score>X then goto Campaign B, if score<x then goto Campaign C.

This is OK right? Even if it is very hard to goto Campaign B it is not as though your "failed" by going to Campaign C... just a different path.

Yes, while looking through teh ocular, in the upper part you could see a small window showing the current bearing. That is 100% sure in observation scopes, and in attack ones also for those not of the fixed-heigth type.

I can't provide more details for procedures and specifically phraseology, but I can provide many details regarding the optics, TDC, and Torpedo shooting/parameter devices.

Ah, thanks. Didn't know they had a "Bearing: FMP" mode.

Cheers

I was speaking in the abstract about sims in general. I don't have any specific information about how the game handles this, but I would be surprised if it actually forced you to repeat a mission. That would be a return to SH2 days.

The point I was initially trying to make was that being given an objective of the sort "sink xxxxx tons of shipping" detracts from realism and game immersion.

Something just occurred to me.

In SH4, when I play with full realism settings (i.e. manual TDC + no map updates), I use the pause key liberally on the theory that I am doing the work of a half-dozen men and therefore want to take me time say flipping through the recognition manual, estimating range/AOB from the periscope, plotting target range/course/speed on the NAV map, fine tuning the torpedo settings, etc., etc.

I am not sure how that is going to work if my virtual Kaleun has to sprint from station to station...:hmmm:

Thanks, Hitman! Something new to learn.
:salute:

This is the same concern I have with it. The game needs to either provide a competent crew that can do those things for you, or allow you to "teleport" from station to station since you're not really teleporting, just changing roles.

If it forces you to play all the roles, like in SH4, AND forces you to run to each station, then it could get real tiring in short order, and make it nearly impossible to play on high-realism.

Obviously, I'm just speculating though since I haven't played it...

Agreed.

I thought Neal had posted that there was a way to switch rapidly between stations, but cannot find that post. Perhaps I misread it.

Unless I am totally misreading these screenshots, there appear to be shortcut controls in the bottom-left and top-right corners.

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Sil...ize=fullscreen

http://www.pcgames.de/aid,705472/Sil...ize=fullscreen

I view that as a consequence of appealing to 'casual' players.

They know bugger all about history unless it was last week.

They tend not to like games that don't lead them by the nose (they might have to, well, think...).

The fact that telling someone to sink x'000 tonnes is an absurdity won't bother them in the slightest, as they don't realise it IS an absurdity. To them, games have clear objectives with pretty pictures.

Empire Total War is another example in that people are perfectly willing to overlook its many, many failures as a claimant of a strategy game because it looks so nice. 'Professional' reviewers aided and abetted this.

So it doesn't surprise me at all. It's also one of the main things to which I attribute the fact that, for me, the overwhelming majority of games are linear, unimaginitive and very tedious from a long-term, replayability factor (which is why I hardly buy any games these days, despite building a fairly high-spec PC).

Cheers

As an objective, yeah it's wrong, but as a campaign branching condition it's fine.

Agreed. Gaming has long since gone past the stage of enthusiasts making games for enthusiasts. Now the targeted market share are the majority and the majority generally doesn't require all that much from their games.

Don't get me wrong, simple games that require little thought have their uses, i.e. they can be great for stress relief and relaxation and I'm not being sarcastic here. The trouble is how prolific they have become to the detriment of "deeper" games.

I myself still hold hope that indy developers will revitalise the gaming industry. This was certainly a promising year for indy games.

As long as it is hidden from the player I'm fine with that. The player shouldn't have so exact information in a war game.


edit: This thread has started to slip away from the original topic it seems.