I'm concerned about game ballance on the American side of things.
 

I have to say I'm interested to try a sub sim of American exploits, as I know virtually nothing about it, but what little I do know seems to make for a poor video game.

1. American torpedos, particularly the Mark XIV, were extremely unreliable up until ~1943. There was the ocasional dud on the German side of things, but from what I have read working American torpedos were the exception rather than the rule. The most famous proof of this was the Seawolf, which launched four Mark XIVs at the stationary and anchured Sagami Maru under ideal conditions and photographically recorded a 100% rate of falure. It was only when they resorted to the Mark X that they had any success. The odd dud just makes things tense, but If I have to worry about duds to that extent that's one realism setting I'll have in the "off" position.

2. Japanese strength was greatest early in the war, and America's was weakest. That of course was inverted by the end of the war. What we have here seems to me to be an inverse learning curve. Sure, technology increases still aply, but America advanced quicker than Japan in that regard too. It seems to me that this would produse an inverse learning curve, which is not a good thing for a video game...

A fair point; but keep in mind that SHIV should counteract it with mission tasking and variety. Or I hope it will. I think it's unfair to say that the Americans were facing an enemy that was better at ASW early in the war - the Japanese did improve even if their resources decreased and there was plenty of new dangers.

Likewise, even in late war - areas around Japan would sure be deadly.

Meanwhile I think the game will be kept interesting with the new types of missions (photo recon/troop insertion/supply delivery/rescue) and different areas to go to.

Also, it appears there's a new "war patrol" mode as opposed to just a single/quick missions, which I'm sure might model larger operations without going into a yearly type of progression.

All in all, I'm not worried about this much. I mean it's natural to expect the enemy to be far more limited later in war if you play the winning side, but I don't expect them to be easier.

As far as torpedoes - can't comment, but I hope it will be a tweakable setting.

There will no doubt be a no-failure setting. And I'm sure the devs didn't make the failures quite as harsh as in real life.

When it comes to duds etc, people tend to forget that the Yanks compensated somewhat by firing 2-3 torps at each target. Part of the issue for the game is that some players might expect to be able to rack up totally unrealistic kill/tonnage totals by firing a single torp at each ship encountered. It is a fact that multiple torps were fired at even quite small targets (say 3-4000t). So, even though a fleet boat had 6 bow and 4 stern tubes and plenty of reloads, that was off-set by the doctrine (and necessity given poor torp reliability) of firing 2-3 torps per target.

Worth noting that torpex came into the mix as well during the campaign, improving considerably the destructive power of US torps.

Reading 'Wahoo' by Dick O'Kane makes some of the tactics/issues pretty clear. They certainly didn't save their torps for the 'next encounter' as they might not have one (the Pacific is a mighty big place to cover, even hanging around known shipping lanes).

As a U-Boat commander it will be quite difficult for me to 'waste" 2,3 or even more torpedos for even small ships.:arrgh!:

Well, if the failure rate is like it's supposed to be, I'll b happy to do it. I'll be angry if they all hit and blow up! :stare:

The Germans had to deal with more than an "ocasional dud". They just corrected their many torp problems sooner.

The US Pacific sub campaign has been a long favorite among software developers and gamers. I doubt UBI would invest in it if they thought it would make a poor video "game".

Yep, during the invasion of Norway German U-Boats could have sunk HMS Warspite 3 or 4 times if the torpedos would have worked. U-56 (Kapitänleutnant Zahn) could have sunk the Nelson if torpedos would not have prematurely detonated. And so on and so on.

If the torpedoes are true to life, then we can also use knowledge we have to compensate for the bad torpedoes.

American torpedoes at the start of the war had two problems: they ran deeper than set and the exploder was faulty when using impact rather than magnetic detonation. Samuel Elliot Morrison summarizes these faults on p. 495 of "The Two Ocean War."

"The first defect caused the torpedo to run ten feet deeper than set, usually so far und a ship's hull that the magnetic feature was not activated."

and "[the second defect, the impact firing pin] proved too fragile to stand up under a good, square, 90-degree hit; normally it would set off the charge only if the warhead hit a ship at an acute angle."

and finally, on page 496: "It was not until September 1943 that United States Submarines had dependable torpedoes."

If all this is accurately recreated in the game, then you should be able to compensate for problem 1 by shooting your magnetic torps on the surface, which would make them run 10 feet deeper, but still shallow enough to be triggered by the ship's magnetic field. The second problem can be overcome by shooting at acute angles.

Or you jsut take the trustworthy Mark IX on board.;)

Actually, they didn't correct it any sooner. German magnetic pistols were withdrawn from service in 1940, and not reinstated until December 1942.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_Notes.htm
http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

HMS Nelson escaped distaster on October 30, 1939 when three impact-fused torpedoes fired by U-56 all failed to explode.


Personally I welcome the prospect of massive failures, mainly because I like to role-play more than I like to game. I wish SHIII had the same realism levels.

Following this logic all computer games that present things from the winning side make for poor games? History doesn't care about play-balance or steeper difficulty curves. Some of us just wish to re-live an little military history. U-Boats were fun, but since SH2 we've been doing that subject for six years now. Change of pace would be nice. :cool:

No, he wrote that games that got easier as you went along make for poor gaming, which in a sense they do. On the other hand, there's some pleasure in it, too, struggling to get started and then seeing the enemy get driven back and your patrols get easier and easier.

As Colonel David Hackworth once said:" If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.":rotfl:

Well this will make for some interesting gameplay.
Besides no matter how late in the war we get, the enemy wont get any easyer.:up: