Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
(Post 1444960)
I disagree. Does adding tonnage requirements and offering different branching campaign options make it more realistic? Talking to the crew may make for a better role-playing game, but does the ability to have the same trivial conversation over and over add to the simulation? Does boosting morale by having the cook prepare a 'special meal' increase the immersion? I would argue that none of the above were necessary to a proper simulator, nor even desirable.
To my mind the perfect simulator would have been AOTD's AI and gameplay, SH1's campaign structure and SH5's graphics.
|
But this is where we get into trouble for people who don't have or are not currently playing the game.
There are two mods that fix this morale/crew thing completely. One removed the necessity to have those inane conversations (unless you want to) and the second allows you to be (for instance) on the Bridge with your Watchcrew and issue orders to the rest of the boat through your Watch Officer. I can turn to him and request a Weather report and he gets it for me. I can ask him to change course and he gets it done for me. I can also interact with a number of different officers throughout the boat, issue them orders, and they get it done. No more does the captain push a button and something happens. Now the Captain issues the order and it happens.
That, not being a Navy type,
seems to me to be a prety accurate simulation of Captain/Crew interaction.
But someone who doesn't have the game (or refuses to use Mods on principle :88)) would not know that and could continue to obsess on the "Soup" conversation.
As to requirements for tonnage of course BDU had tonnage requirements and mission objectives for their Captains. At the start of the war Doenitz knew exactly how much tonnage they had to sink to bring Britain to it's knees. Given that, I am certain that he did not give his captains the freedom to just go where they wanted and do whatever they wanted. They were sent to specific areas and given specific objectives. The ones who were successful were give the important assignments later. The reason Reinhard Hardegen was sent to America was that he had proven that he could accomplish difficult tasks. The reason Prein was sent to Scapa Flow was that Doenitz had confidence in his ability to succeed because he had accomplished his objectives in the past. This is modeled perfectly in the game. Do well and you get sent to the US Eastern Seaboard. Don't do well and you get less important missions.
As to requirements to sink certain ships one has to only look at the real life Norway campaign as an example. The captains sent there were instructed to expend their efforts on Naval vessels and, if that meant ignoring merchants, so be it. This exact scenario is represented in SH5, and has met with a lot of derision from some people here, but it is historically accurate.
Now before one of the usual suspects pops up with a list of the game's shortcomings, I am talking about what the game is, not what it could have been or should have been. That conversation would be different for every member of this forum. But what it is, and is becoming, is a pretty good simulation of a U-Boat experience. What the others have been is at most Attack Simulators. This is the first attempt to create a U-Boat Captain simulator. Does it fall short in a lot of area's? Hell yes. Is it a noble attempt that is being made better and better every day? Same answer.
But to know that, you have to be playing. Otherwise people can fall into the trap of regurgitating the same old points over and over an over, a lot of which are no longer relevant.
Or not.
JCC
