Does 1.3 patch solve career limitation problem?
 

After testing 1.3 beta during last 36 hours(with short brakes for a job participation)
I found that
1(:cry: ) possibly devs didnt solve a career 'bug'. IMHO that career patrol limitation to real numbers (like 5 - 8 maximum limit of patrols ) ,makes game ( ok simulator) realistically boring. At least we need an option to choose between level of historical realism ( and jush wishful thinking option for level of opponent's AI)
I had to quote from their declaration of intentions" The players career is ended sometimes by high command, for inaccurate reasons such as perfectly good and new submarines being retired from frontline duty. This will be sorted out to work as intended." (But what does their "as intended" mean? )
2(:D ) devs made great job with improving JIN's AI, magniicent job with speed estimation ( it included inside even possibility for human error !!!) wonderful new radar, solving imperial / metric bug in stadimeter etc.
They did great job BUT:damn: Will we be send to the office job again after 5-8 patrols?

Enough of this. :-?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118186

:roll:

Enough of Enoughs:nope:

How about enough of making duplicate threads when there is an active discussion on this very matter not less than a day old? :hmm:

LukeFF, you made you point by posting a link.
"Enough of this" Sounded like command from HQ, or reaction of His Hollyness.
Sincerely W-sub.
OK. What done is done.
Im following your link

Sorry I know that english is not your native language but I had to quote this out of context because it made me laugh.

You do know you can get addittional missions without returning to home base ?

My current carrier has 3 patrols with almost 20 missions.

Yes. I know( or knew) but honestly I did it just 2 or 3 times.In real life the crew needs to be 'back to ground' each 3 month. :rotfl:Oops I think I am contradicting my own stand against too realistic career.
I think it( multiple refilling and request of new missions) is One of the possible solutions. I just prefer that we have more "complete" one.
Sincerely.
W-Sub