Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
My question is why do we have to judge the game from a historical perspective so far as enemy ship dispositions go? Why, when we go to investigate the Battle of Midway, for instance, does the exact reenactment of the conflict (within the limitations of the game to render it) become our yardstick for "I don't even know where to start it was so bad. The thing that really got to me was the stock campaigns historical battles."
Don't you realize that when you play like that you are so unrealistic that you have rendered Silent Hunter 4 something from Capcom Games? Not one submariner in the war left port looking for the Battle of the Coral Sea. The ones that did get deployed in fleet support, in 1944 during the Battle of the Philipines, accomplished next to nothing.
The reason for that is that they did not know what to expect, where. They didn't have an enemy timeline with course and position on their map so they could go intercept the troop landings on Guadalcanal. The fact is most of the time they had no idea what they would encounter in the patrol area assigned.
Why, THAT'S JUST LIKE THE STOCK GAME that you think stinks so bad! It stinks so bad because it doesn't allow you to cheat and take a God's eye view of the war. It stinks because you can't take a simulation and make it into Frogger.
Reality ain't predictable, any more than insanity is. By demanding rationality in a simulation we are demanding to play an arcade game. If we really want a simulator, it has to simulate the state of mind of the actual participants in WWII, not knowing.Not knowing where the enemy was - Not knowing whether they would encounter lone merchies or heavily escorted convoys
- Not knowing where they were likely to encounter capital ships
- Not knowing the length, tonnage, armament, height or cargo of targets
- Not being able to identify the vast majority of targets encountered
- Not knowing whether they would return or not
Simulation does not consist of an exact recreation of the war as it transpired. It simulates participating in the unknown. If it were to happen again with the same assets, entirely different battles would be fought. A different list of submarines would not return. A different list of targets would be sunk at different places.
Think about it! What you expect out of the game is the exact opposite of simulation. |
While you have a valid point, part of the fun of this sim is it is set in a time and place that still fascinates many all these years later. Part of the excitement and simulation of WW II in the Pacific is being able to witness(and if able and/or player chooses put themselves in the fray. Few weeks back I was running an S boat out of Brisbane in 42, I decided to patrol off Savo Island on night of August 8/9 and found myself in position to attack the Japanese force. I sent a contact report, then attacked, 3 torpedoes hit a heavy cruiser, this through the battle line in disarray , allowing Allied force to open fire first and have an advantage, the battle turned out much better than historically did for the Allied force, so in a sense I, the player, was able to change up history.Now, this would not be possible without RSRD because I recall stock had next to NOTHING in the Solomons, just left the whole important campaign out of the war.
The sim is also in a way, telling a story, one that does not get told often, the story of the silent service in WW II .yes some things change but major, important things like the battles, should be recreated historically accurate as possible and left up to the player to change history such as I did, if they choose or are able, in some cases they wont make a dent, as some subs found out.Not making things accurate along with the million other flaws of stock, made it more of an arcade game than a sim.To me, stock game had a lot of signs of laziness.I understand the schedules, budgets etc but they just overlooked so much with no excuse.Honestly, SH 4 is a pretty amazing sim now, 6 years since it's release? Without the great community of modders and supporters, it would have been dead long ago.
Subs had no impact at the Philippine Sea? Did I read that correctly? Surely you know they sunk two aircraft carriers...Taiho and Shokaku. Contact report from Harder off Tawi Tawi and the hell she was raising in days prior caused fleet to deploy early , convinced Tawi Tawi was surrounded by submarines, so goes the story.Seahorse sent a pretty important contact report as well.Subs made a big difference at Philippine Sea.