[captgeo]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

As I understand it, TMO makes enemy ASW more aggressive and more efficient as a compensation, because it also makes it easier to find targets. RFB tries to keep both target density and ASW at historical levels. As a result, it is easier in RFB to make an attack and survive, but harder to find something to attack. RFB emphasizes the "hunter" in Silent Hunter, and it is possible to spend whole patrols searching an enpty ocean until you figure out the right places to look. Or you can go to the historical record and read where and how the successful subs found their prey, and learn that way. RFB (with RSRDC) is accurate enough that you can do that.

According to its creator Ducimus, TMO is intended to be more of a game than a pure historical simulation. There is more action, both offensive and defensive. Ducimus said he was trying for 80% historical accuracy and 20% playability. YMMV.

TMO does play more like an ATO sim, in that there are more targets and the ASW is more deadly. From what I have observed on this forum, most gamers who came to SH4 from ATO sims like SH3 seem to find it more to their liking, because the tactical environment is similar to what they are used to.

Briefly, and again this is just my opinion, RFB is about the hunt, TMO is about the fight. Historically, the challenge in the Pacific was the hunt, but TMO intentionally gives the player more action. Which you prefer depends entirely on what you want from the game.

I agree with the above perfect comparison