Obviously a product of poor game design/execution.
Poor design in that it might well be better to give players the option of 'teleporting' through the canal rather than having to plot through it. The 'realism' junkies can go through it if they want, others can just plot to the 'entrance' point then plot from the 'exit'.
Problem solved.
Poor execution in that they still haven't worked out how to get interruption of TC to work effectively. By 'effectively' I mean interrupting it at a point that is a realistic representation of when the cause of the interruption is likely to be detected. It's a fact that surface vessels will almost always be detected by a submarine before the reverse occurs. It was the advent of radar that altered this, which is a large part of why radar was the decisive factor in the battle of the Atlantic.
As an aside, anyone who disputes this might like to look at the equivalent campaign by US subs in the pacific, where Japanese escorts typically didn't have radar even in late 1944 (read Clear the Bridge by Dick O'Kane and the differences in ASW abilities between the Allies in the Atlantic and the Japanese in the Pacific are staggering).
TC had issues in SH3 and 4, too. They really need to go 'back to the drawing board' to see what's feasible. For all its flaws, a system that chucks you out of TC because there's a possibility of interception within 5 minutes of real time would be preferable as it would avoid the flaw of you knowing nothing until a ship is 100m from you (or, worse, being disturbed by the 'death' screen, which I've read about happening in SH5).
Just poor planning and execution. Nothing new, I guess.
|