Poll about the renown system
 

Hi everyone.

I changed my cfgs to that way that new boats/improvements don't cost any renown. The reason was that I found it somewhat illogical to have to "pay" my hard earned renown points for something Doenitz would have happily given me to survive and further his efforts. And to top this you could even lose a rank when upgrading or changing subs.

I would instead support and understand a system like "you need x renown to get upgrade y" but when you get it you don't lose any renown, it's merely a prerequisite to have that much renown as the upgrade/sub "costs".

So what do you think about this?

No offense, but this has already been done and said and posted so many time during my short stay here that...

I belive that renown is like fame and more ships you sunk, you had better chances for getting a new boat when requesting one. It should stay!

Plus many Kaleuns here keep with one boat and upgrades don't cost too much over all the years!

Firstly i agree that renown can be annoying. One of the first things i *Used* to was open the basic.cfg find "renown =" and do a global replace with "renown=0;".

Over time i stopped doing that. And the argument for renown is this.

In a military, im imagning any military really, how much of materials, and supplies are often limited. In aquisitioning stuff, it's all about who you know. The "good ole boy" system is very much alive and well, and probably always will be. It's basically a system of you scratch my back, ill scratch yours.

For instance, I, being an engineer at the time, as asked a favor by these communications guys to dig a big hole for them with a backhoe so they could run some cable. I didnt have to do this, but i did, and by doing so i scored some "renown" with these guys. "hey that guy over there saved us alot of dam time! Thumbs up to him!" In return i got a ride in an F4 simulator for about 2 or 3 hours. By doing that, i cashed in my "renown" and got something for it.

A similar situation can be said about supply sgts. If he only has so many of an item, he's not liable to part with it very easily, or at the least he's not going to give it to just any joe schmoe who walks through his door. If you have enough "renown" (sometimes being in a special duty unit is enough, othertimes you may have to do him a favor, or call in a favor he owes you), then you'll get the part. Once you call in any favor, he no longer owes you for whatever you did for him, so in action you'd lose renown, but not neccessarily standings.

If that makes any sense.

Well, I think there's a difference between "duty" and "favor". The examples you are talking about are favors, the "I owe you one" situations.
But as a sub commander it is my duty to sink ships and earn renown and climb up the ladder in this process. I'm not doing a favor for the BdU. And military ranks and decorations are mostly dependent on good results in your operations which are consequently rewarded, but not in this way "You've done good and are promoted/are allowed to buy upgrades but you have to start from scratch now". That doesn't make sense for me.

I think renown should be required, but since when do commanders LOSE renown when they make things easier for themselves? Since when were commanders rewarded for being masochists?

I really do not know why renown is used to get things being I'm risking my behind out there in the ocean. The real reason the renown is there is to give the player a goal to obtain. If it was all just handed to you it would not be much fun in a goal free environment. So now I need 9000 renown for an IX boat. Gee it is really sleek and I like the color plus it has a CD player. I can only get it if I go out like a good commander and sink a few ships. If it was handed over free of charge, I would not feel like I accomplished anything. There would be no sense of accomplishment and working you crew into a crack team of hellions!

Ok heres an example more directly related. I don't have the book infront of me, but i remember it distinctly. Herbert Werner, in "Iron Coffins" towards the end of the war, meets up with one of his old captains thats still around, that was put in command of one of the newer type XXI's going through sea trials. His captain asked him, "they don't have you sailing one of those old coffins do they?", His response was that , to paraphraise, "I dont have the same level of influence that you do."

Simply put, he wasnt a high enough reknown skipper to be intrusted with that type of boat. It's not fair, but thats how the world works. I think of renown as an emulation of that. Same thing with snorkels. They weren't widley available until 44. Herbert Werener knew of them in 43, but coudlnt aquisition one. Supplies were limited, and he just didnt have the strings to pull to make it happen.

That's exactly the point why I'd plead for the 2nd option (for which I voted but which I cannot imply in the game...)

No, but you're doing a favour to the German Nation and Herr Furer (from the Germans side of view, so I don't get called a naci). You sank a lot of ships, did a favour to the German people, duss in return you get better fish as the local fish guy likes you better, because you managed to prevent the enemy destroying his shipment of goods that made the fish.

Capish? :shifty:

And that is exactly what I meant with my initial post, be successful, be rewarded by having access to the real goodies but be not penalized for using them.

Do you remember the game "Aces of the Deep"? You were offered a new (better) boat only if you were a really succesful commander. If you didn't think enough ships you didn't get the XXI for example. This is how SH3 should work: You only get new boats if you are succesful and have the required renown but you don't lose that renown when you get a new one!:rock::up:

Deduction of renown is most likely hardcoded. So either use renown, or don't use renown, your choice. I highly doubt your going to get a "must be of X renown to get this tiem" without a deduction from your total pool. its a mathmatical computation, and again, probably hardcoded. So your probably going to have to just deal with renown on or off. Most people turn it off anyway, everyones more or less, "Gimme mah stuff without the BS!" personnaly i leave it on because i feel it reasonably emulates aquisitiion, and the fact that you feel like you upgraded something.

An upgrade doesnt feel like an upgrade if you get it for free. By removing renown, you may as well just equip your boat with everything you want from the get go so the instant you get it in game. I've done that too, and it' feels shallow.

"Do you remember the game "Aces of the Deep"? You were offered a new (better) boat only if you were a really succesful commander. If you didn't think enough ships you didn't get the XXI for example. This is how SH3 should work: You only get new boats if you are succesful and have the required renown but you don't lose that renown when you get a new one!:rock::up:"

Remember? Are you kidding? :D

This is prolly the game that I spent the most time playing in every fashion, vanilla and CAOTD. Still one of my all time favourites (still playing it today ;) ).

And yes, that's about the reward system I'm talking about but the upgrading freedom of SH3 would be a very nice addition to that.

And that's maybe one of the pluses of this game that there's a lot of freedom on how to play it. I feel relatively fine with the 0 renown (as there's no other option due to hardcoding as you rightly mentioned), you feel fine with the way it is, and we all feel fine with this great game.
I just wanted to know really what others think about this issue and how they play the game. :)

It's too bad really; I think the best thing would have been to lose renown for buying upgrades, but have it not be possible to be demoted for lack of it. That way you would have to wait to upgrade again, but not have to worry about loss of rank.